Published AAO appeal decisions

A licensed professional engineer in HVAC systems sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only the published material criterion but failed to establish three or more criteria or sustained national acclaim needed for extraordinary ability classification.

A printing engineer specializing in flexographic technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found only one satisfied, rejected two, treated two as abandoned and reserved one. Lacking three criteria, the appeal was dismissed, and the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was withdrawn.

Engineering manager in aerospace field seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but evidence of impact contradictory; innovations limited to employer company without proven broader industry adoption. AAO dismissed because overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Professional auto racing team petitioned for an engineer employed since 2016. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of automotive engineering.

An engineer claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the published material articles were about the employer or industry, not the petitioner's work, and lacked formal evidence of judging designation. The record failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An employer petitioned for an engineer to receive EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The beneficiary met two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, the AAO held the beneficiary failed to meet the required three criteria threshold because contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and sustained acclaim in the field was not established.

A mechanical engineering professor from Nigeria claimed extraordinary ability through judging, scholarly articles, and critical roles. The AAO found he met three initial criteria but lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A mechanical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through contributions to aeronautical research and design. The AAO found judging and original contribution criteria met but rejected the claim that contributions had major significance. The petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Managed pressure drilling engineer met three initial criteria: high salary, judging abstracts, and two scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.

Applied mechanics engineer claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, and judging. AAO sustained judging and scholarly articles but rejected membership based on doctoral degree alone not demonstrating outstanding achievement and published material as self-authored. Did not reach final merits stage.

A testing and commissioning engineer sought extraordinary ability classification and claimed six evidentiary criteria on appeal: awards, membership, salary, judging, original contributions, and leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding none satisfied because the evidence was insufficient, such as automatic membership, unspecific letters, and no shown distinguished reputation.

Industrial engineer employed as principal engineer sought EB-1A classification. Director found two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary). Petitioner claimed third criterion regarding critical role; AAO rejected it. Three-criterion threshold not met; final merits not required.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

Lawyer-engineer claimed extraordinary ability in engineering and intellectual property. Met three initial criteria but AAO found lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence predominantly from 1999-2004 with no recent accomplishments; awards lacked national or international recognition despite professional activity.

Automation and control engineer employed by U.S. company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to meet required third criterion. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions findings all insufficient. AAO affirmed dismissal.

Employer-sponsored petition for mechanical engineer to obtain EB-1A extraordinary ability classification was appealed. Petitioner did not establish one-time achievement or three of ten criteria. Published material criterion not met due to insufficient documentation. No comparable evidence permitted for this occupation.

An engineer sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met the judging criterion but not the membership criterion; evidence of only one criterion is insufficient. Even in aggregate, evidence did not demonstrate the expertise required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner did not meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold; applied Kazarian two-step approach and dismissed appeal.

An industrial engineer's employer-sponsored EB-1A petition met judging criterion but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found petitioner's time and motion analysis, though valuable to employers, did not constitute major significance in the field. Did not meet threshold for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Petroleum engineer claiming extraordinary ability as deepwater well specialist. Petitioner claimed awards and association membership. AAO found internal company recognition insufficient and membership requirement not met. Final merits determination found achievements did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

An engineer and power plant chief of operations sought EB-1A classification claiming membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success. The AAO found the beneficiary failed all criteria: no qualifying membership, no published material about him, letters alone cannot establish original contributions of major significance, and no evidence he drove company revenue. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner engineer of alpaca fleece equipment seeks extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, noting petitioner submitted minimal documentation unrelated to any criterion, single newspaper article insufficient, no patent documentation despite design role, and failure to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Mechanical engineering researcher self-petitioner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability through membership, judging, original contributions, and publications. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no criterion met and no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement at the very top of the field.

Aerospace engineer claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of scholarship award, professional membership, authored works, publications, organizational role, and salary. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; scholarship had multiple winners, membership lacked outstanding achievement requirement, scholarly work not documented, salary not shown as high. Appeal dismissed.