Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Ph.D. researcher in electrical engineering sought national interest waiver for EB-2 classification with proposed soft electronics research. AAO found research had substantial merit and national importance but petitioner not well positioned to advance it; support letters and publications lacked demonstrated widespread influence or comparative success metrics. Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

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.