Published AAO appeal decisions

A construction manager in transportation infrastructure sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed to meet judging, high salary, and leading role criteria. AAO found judging criterion met and remanded salary criterion analysis, but concluded he failed to demonstrate the three required criteria and thus lacked extraordinary ability.

Transportation architect with master's degree and H-1B work history claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. On final merits, AAO determined petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for top-tier classification.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

Surveyor seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability in geodetic and survey networks. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that original contributions and leading critical roles criteria unmet. With only two criteria satisfied, threshold not reached; final merits determination declined.

Environmental engineer claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected membership, published material, and original contributions. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A classification.

A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.

Self-petitioner water resources engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (articles and judging) and failed to establish national or international acclaim or standing among top percentage of field despite research contributions.

A civil engineer claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A based on eight regulatory criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three required, and failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

An associate professor of geotechnical engineering in Venezuela sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed because he failed to establish three criteria, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top in his field.

Postdoctoral research associate sought EB-1A classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on publications, presentations, and citations. AAO rejected original contributions criterion, finding publication venue and citation counts insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three criteria.

Environmental science researcher claimed to meet five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found he met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Awards and membership criteria were rejected. The decision concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.

Environmental engineering researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles. AAO sustained appeal, finding the totality of evidence demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition as among the very top of the field.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.