Published AAO appeal decisions

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing sought EB-1A classification. On motion to reconsider, he disputed the dismissal of his appeal without presenting new evidence or facts. The AAO found he failed to establish three required criteria and upheld the dismissal.

A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role. AAO sustained those findings but rejected the final merits determination, holding evidence showed competence but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status required for EB-1A.

An electrical engineer petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria through invention of significant microwave technology, substantial publications, and important contributions to the research field, demonstrating sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner electrical engineer claimed seven criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner met none of the claimed criteria and failed to establish the three required to show sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.