Published AAO appeal decisions

A mechanical engineer researcher claimed extraordinary ability through awards and memberships. The AAO rejected both criteria and the overall petition because the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top in the field.

Mechanical engineer researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Counsel argued petitioner's important research should qualify despite criterion requirements. AAO found evidence shows talent but fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field, dismissing appeal.

Mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through membership, published materials on political issues, judging service, and scholarly articles. AAO found published materials concerned politics not engineering, judging service lacked evidence of selectivity, and scholarly articles lacked evidence of influence. Appeal dismissed for failing to meet three required criteria.

Marine propeller repair and tuning instructor claimed extraordinary ability but submitted no documentation of any regulatory criteria. Petitioner asserted beneficiary brings value to industry without evidence. AAO found no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or distinction at top of field.

Counsel-represented industrial engineer claims extraordinary ability through awards, judging, and publications. AAO found Honda grant lacked recognition as excellence award, judging routine without exceptional scope, and publications with expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrated talent but not sustained top-tier professional status.

Industrial engineer appealed EB-1A denial, claiming award, judging, and publication criteria. AAO found no nationally recognized prize, peer review routine without distinction, and expert letters insufficient. Overall evidence demonstrates talent but not elite status required.