Published AAO appeal decisions

A global vehicle manufacturer petitioned for a vice president of vehicle engineering to receive extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the beneficiary did not meet the awards, membership, or high salary criteria and failed the final merits determination, concluding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

A mechanical engineer researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards and memberships. The AAO rejected both criteria and the overall petition because the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top in the field.

Mechanical engineer researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Counsel argued petitioner's important research should qualify despite criterion requirements. AAO found evidence shows talent but fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field, dismissing appeal.

Counsel-represented industrial engineer claims extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and publications. AAO found Honda grant lacked recognition as excellence award, judging routine without exceptional scope, and publications with expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained top-tier professional status.

Industrial engineer appealed EB-1A denial, claiming award, judging, and publication criteria. AAO found no nationally recognized prize, peer review routine without distinction, and expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrates talent but not elite status required.