EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringIndividualDecided September 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP302022_01B2203
Published materialMetOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.
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
- Published material · An article about her work in a local news outlet satisfied the criterion.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Major significance of her standards in the field was not demonstrated.
- Scholarly articles · Evidence did not show the articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or major media.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Published material | Met | An article about her work in a local news outlet satisfied the criterion. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Major significance of her standards in the field was not demonstrated. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Evidence did not show the articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or major media. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not contest the denial on appeal, so it was abandoned. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not contest the denial on appeal, so it was abandoned. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; the issue was reserved since the outcome would not change. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Not reached because fewer than three criteria were met, though closing remarks note insufficient acclaim. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.