Published AAO appeal decisions

Ph.D. in biological and agricultural engineering claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed Service Center finding that petitioner met only judging and articles criteria. Original contributions claim rejected because citation rates and professional letters did not establish widespread field commentary on significance.

An automotive manufacturer petitioned for EB-1A classification for a motorsports aerodynamics engineer. The petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary. The AAO found the publication not sufficiently authoritative, citations not demonstrable as significant, and wage comparisons not appropriately benchmarked, dismissing the appeal.

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

Aerospace researcher claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found she met fewer than three criteria required and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field, dismissing the appeal.

A global vehicle manufacturer petitioned for a vice president of vehicle engineering to receive extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the beneficiary did not meet the awards, membership, or high salary criteria and failed the final merits determination, concluding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Automotive design engineer seeking extraordinary ability classification met only two of ten evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to provide brief or additional evidence and did not meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

A post-doctoral researcher in engineering mechanics sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

A director of product compliance at a school bus manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only a high salary criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found memberships, published material, contributions and scholarly articles unmet, leaving fewer than three criteria, and dismissed the appeal.

A manufacturing engineer in the automotive sector sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, claiming the work would improve manufacturing efficiency. The decision is an NIW case, not extraordinary ability. The appeal was dismissed because the national importance of the specific endeavor was not shown beyond the employer's plant.

A petroleum and industrial engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, membership was abandoned, and scholarly articles did not meet plain language requirements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Mechanical technician sought EB-1A as self-petitioner. Claimed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. AAO found membership criterion not met due to missing certified translation and course completion not establishing outstanding achievement requirement; declined to reach other criteria after petitioner failed three-criterion threshold. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim.

A completions and wells engineer held an approved extraordinary ability petition that was revoked after a notice of intent to revoke drew no response. The appeal argued the notice was never received. The AAO dismissed it, finding the notice was properly mailed to the attorney and petitioner, and no rebuttal was filed. No criteria were analyzed.

Drilling engineer and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO affirmed denial, finding awards lacked recognition, article was promotional, and salary claims ignored remuneration requirement. Overall work did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim at extraordinary ability level.

An engineer seeking EB-1A classification for a startup thermal energy and heat pump systems business claimed two criteria. The AAO found neither the degree nor professional memberships satisfied the requirements and concluded the record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Drilling engineering executive claiming extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held final merits not satisfied; accomplishments lack sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish top-tier status in field.

A nanofluid engineer met three initial EB-1A criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but failed final merits. The AAO found his publication record (two papers, 2,400 citations, inactive since 2010) does not establish him among the very top researchers relative to peers, and lacks sustained acclaim.

Quality control engineer in automotive industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) at initial step but failed final merits determination. AAO held insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or place among small percentage at field top.

Paintless dent repair specialist in automotive industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two criteria (published material, judging) but failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

Engineering executive in drilling and well completion sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of required three initial criteria and failed final merits determination; lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

Mechanical engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role. However, failed to establish major significance of original contributions and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Mechanical engineering technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Initial petition denied; appeal summarily dismissed for insufficient argumentation. Petitioner filed six subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider, all dismissed. AAO found no new facts or proper cause warranting reopening.

Aerospace technology specialist in air transportation modeling claiming extraordinary ability. Met scholarly articles and judging criteria but failed membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. Only two of ten criteria established despite claiming four additional. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier recognition.