Published AAO appeal decisions

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A completions and wells engineer held an approved extraordinary ability petition that was revoked after a notice of intent to revoke drew no response.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.