Outcome: Dismissed
JUN162005_10B2203
Our summary
Mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published materials on political issues, judging service, and scholarly articles. AAO found published materials concerned politics not engineering, judging service lacked evidence of selectivity, and scholarly articles lacked evidence of influence. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.
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 · Service on panel not shown to select only small percentage of top engineers
- Membership · Membership in associations did not require outstanding achievement as essential condition
- Published material · Published materials concerned political issues, not mechanical engineering field
- Scholarly articles · Findings not shown to be unusually influential or highly acclaimed in engineering field
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Service on panel not shown to select only small percentage of top engineers | |
| Not met | Membership in associations did not require outstanding achievement as essential condition | |
| Not met | Published materials concerned political issues, not mechanical engineering field | |
| Not met | Findings not shown to be unusually influential or highly acclaimed in engineering field | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
