Published AAO appeal decisions

Professional auto racing team petitioned for an engineer employed since 2016. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of automotive engineering.

An employer petitioned for an engineer to receive EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The beneficiary met two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, the AAO held the beneficiary failed to meet the required three criteria threshold because contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and sustained acclaim in the field was not established.

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.

An industrial engineer's employer-sponsored EB-1A petition met judging criterion but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found petitioner's time and motion analysis, though valuable to employers, did not constitute major significance in the field. Did not meet threshold for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

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.