Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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 self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

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.

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.

Strategic port planner with 25 years maritime experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met leading role and high salary criteria but failed membership requirement. Dismissed because only two of three required criteria satisfied; final merits determination not conducted.

Environmental engineer with thirty years experience claimed extraordinary ability. Submitted partially translated documents and awards without establishing national or international recognition. Failed to meet minimum three criteria due to insufficient documentary support.

A civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed seven criteria. The AAO found awards, membership, and published material unmet. Because the petitioner failed to meet the required three initial criteria, final merits analysis was unnecessary, though the record in aggregate did not show the required acclaim.

A geotechnical engineer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming three criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards and abandoned membership claims, providing no qualifying evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A quality assurance manager in film restoration claiming extraordinary ability in rheology and civil engineering. The AAO upheld denial, finding no sustained national or international acclaim. Awards were outdated and for service, not excellence; membership criteria unestablished. Petitioner failed to demonstrate place among the very top.