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.

Electrical engineer with master's and doctoral degrees from Iran proposing renewable energy research. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles); failed to establish original contributions of major significance; appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer in semiconductor power electronics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles, high salary, and judging work. However, AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary to establish placement among the small percentage at the field's very top.

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.

Senior staff engineer in semiconductor electronics and thermal management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed original contributions of major significance through citations and expert letters. AAO affirmed denial because citation count not high relative to peers and expert letters lack field-wide impact documentation beyond employer.

Electrical engineer self-petitioner claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO agreed with service center that petitioner met none of the claimed criteria: awards, judging, or original contributions. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

An electrical engineer sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center revoked an earlier approval. On appeal, the petitioner submitted an affidavit and letter about the lengthy procedural history and stress, but no substantive response to the revocation grounds. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error of law or fact.

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.

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.

A postdoctoral optoelectronics researcher sought EB-1A. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. Claimed original contributions based on 1,131 citations but AAO found cumulative citations and ranking do not establish major significance. Only two of three required criteria met. No sustained national acclaim demonstrated.

A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.

Electrical engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions; citations and patents lacked evidence of major significance. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Wireless communications engineer met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Accomplished career and peer support letters insufficient; objective documentation did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top field placement.

Senior staff electrical engineer seeks EB-1A classification claiming judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance. Only two criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed.

Senior electrical engineer and project manager sponsored by employer. Met judging, scholarly articles, and high salary criteria but failed final merits. Despite satisfying three initial criteria, record insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among very top professionals in field.

Project assistant engineer seeking EB-1A in sciences. Failed to establish major internationally recognized award or three criteria. Original contributions and exhibitions criteria not met; insufficient evidence of artistic displays or major significance. AAO dismissed appeal finding no evidence of top-of-field status.

An engineer developing power system control algorithms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only two of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate final merits. The record did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim required for the classification.

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.

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.