EB-1AElectrical and electronic engineeringIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL122005_05B2203
JudgingNot metMembershipNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Judging · Manuscript peer review is administrative not technical role; occasional participation does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim
- Membership · IEEE membership requires education and experience, not outstanding achievement; does not satisfy criterion
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | Manuscript peer review is administrative not technical role; occasional participation does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim |
 Membership | Not met | IEEE membership requires education and experience, not outstanding achievement; does not satisfy criterion |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.