EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringEmployerDecided 2009Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Mar272009_03B2203
Commercial successNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An engineer and power plant chief of operations sought EB-1A classification claiming membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success. The AAO found the beneficiary failed all criteria: no qualifying membership, no published material about him, letters alone cannot establish original contributions of major significance, and no evidence he drove company revenue. 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
- Commercial success · No evidence that beneficiary was responsible for petitioner's revenue; commercial success not demonstrated
- Membership · Association with organizations does not satisfy criterion; actual membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement not established
- Original contributions · Letters attesting to work importance insufficient; no preexisting independent evidence that beneficiary's designs or operations were original with major significance to field
- Published material · News articles submitted were not about the beneficiary; published material criterion requires evidence about the individual
- Final merits · Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing beneficiary at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Commercial success | Not met | No evidence that beneficiary was responsible for petitioner's revenue; commercial success not demonstrated |
 Membership | Not met | Association with organizations does not satisfy criterion; actual membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement not established |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters attesting to work importance insufficient; no preexisting independent evidence that beneficiary's designs or operations were original with major significance to field |
 Published material | Not met | News articles submitted were not about the beneficiary; published material criterion requires evidence about the individual |
 Final merits | Not met | Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing beneficiary at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.