EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringIndividualDecided May 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY122025_02B2203
Leading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A civil engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS determination not disturbed on appeal
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS determination not disturbed on appeal
What was missing
- Awards · No major, internationally recognized award demonstrated
- High salary · Salary compared to different occupation; failed plain language requirement
- Membership · Membership association does not use recognized experts to judge outstanding achievements
- Original contributions · Did not demonstrate originality or major significance of claimed contributions
- Final merits · Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or place among top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS determination not disturbed on appeal |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS determination not disturbed on appeal |
 Awards | Not met | No major, internationally recognized award demonstrated |
 High salary | Not met | Salary compared to different occupation; failed plain language requirement |
 Membership | Not met | Membership association does not use recognized experts to judge outstanding achievements |
 Original contributions | Not met | Did not demonstrate originality or major significance of claimed contributions |
 Final merits | Not met | Does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or place among top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.