EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided November 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
NOV202025_01B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A post-doctoral researcher in engineering mechanics sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.
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
- Judging · SCOPS determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb finding
What was missing
- Original contributions · Petitioner made original contributions but failed to show they have major significance
- Final merits · Record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb finding |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner made original contributions but failed to show they have major significance |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed by petitioner |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed by petitioner |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.