Published AAO appeal decisions

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

Computational mathematics researcher petitioner sought NIW for EB-2 based on infrastructure and transportation research. AAO dismissed appeal because although proposed work met first Dhanasar prong, petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient record of success or unique contributions to satisfy well-positioned and balancing prongs.

Metallurgical engineer with advanced degree sought NIW for continued manufacturing work. Under Dhanasar, petitioner established EB-2 eligibility but failed to demonstrate national importance; proposed work affected only employer and customers, not broader industry or field. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Employer-sponsored petition for mechanical engineer to obtain EB-1A extraordinary ability classification was appealed. Petitioner did not establish one-time achievement or three of ten criteria. Published material criterion not met due to insufficient documentation. No comparable evidence permitted for this occupation.

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.

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.

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.

Marine propeller repair and tuning instructor claimed extraordinary ability but submitted no documentation of any regulatory criteria. Petitioner asserted beneficiary brings value to industry without evidence. AAO found no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or distinction at top of field.

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.