Published AAO appeal decisions

An automotive manufacturer petitioned for EB-1A classification for a motorsports aerodynamics engineer. The petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the publication not sufficiently authoritative, citations not demonstrable as significant, and wage comparisons not appropriately benchmarked, dismissing the appeal.

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.

A manufacturing engineer in the automotive sector sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, claiming the work would improve manufacturing efficiency. The decision is an NIW case, not extraordinary ability. The appeal was dismissed because the national importance of the specific endeavor was not shown beyond the employer's plant.

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.

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.

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.