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.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.

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.

Senior device engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences under three criteria: awards, membership. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met no criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary for top-level classification.

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.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on IEEE membership and manuscript peer-review work. The AAO found IEEE membership requirements do not demand outstanding achievement, and occasional peer review represents administrative rather than technical expertise insufficient for sustained acclaim at the very top. Appeal dismissed.

Optical engineer claims extraordinary ability through scholarships, internal award, manuscript review, and major contributions to fiber optics. AAO found significant scientific contributions but insufficient sustained acclaim at field's top level to meet EB-1A standard.

An engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion through widely cited PhD publications. However, the AAO found he met only one criterion when three are required, and concluded evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top.

Self-petitioner engineer with extraordinary ability in sciences sought EB-1A classification. Claimed membership, scholarly articles, original contributions, and high salary. AAO found scholarly articles criterion met but only two criteria overall satisfied; three required. Dismissed because evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top of field.

Electrical engineer, self-petitioner, claimed membership and judging roles as evidence of extraordinary ability. AAO found IEEE membership based on education not outstanding achievement, and peer review participation occasional and administrative, failing to establish at least three criteria or sustained top-level acclaim.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found insufficient evidence for any criterion; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or distinguish himself significantly from others in the field.