Published AAO appeal decisions

Civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: lesser awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards were to projects not petitioner, and leading role organizations lacked distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

BIM specialist in sustainable architecture design sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Petitioner qualified for advanced-degree classification but failed to respond to RFE requesting evidence under three-part Dhanasar framework. Appeal dismissed as abandoned and on merits for insufficient national importance.

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.

Water resource engineer self-petitioner for EB-1A claimed awards including Peace Messenger and Vernadski award. AAO found awards not nationally or internationally recognized; selection and honors lack evidence of sustained national acclaim. No evidence of other criteria. Appeal dismissed.

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.