Civil and Environmental Engineering
AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Civil and Environmental Engineering (Engineering), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Original contribution.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
Why these criteria usually go uncounted
The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.
Original contribution
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.
The Engineering field in the database: 94 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 19 remanded, 74 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | counted | 51 of 65 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 18 of 67 (27%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 52 of 65 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Engineering appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met at least three of the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to establish 'original contributions of major significance' in her field. The AAO found the evidence presented regarding journal reviews, publications, conference presentations, citations, and recommendation letters insufficient to meet this standard.
The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.
Full AAO decision of July 23, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 2 (Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Original contribution.
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Autonomous Systems and Robotics Engineeringcase remanded, 2024
- Wireless Communications Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2020
- Electrical equipment maintenance and electronic communication specialistappeal dismissed, 2020
- Engineering (mechanical, aeronautical, and aerospace)case remanded, 2023
- Sciences (specifically Nanofluid/Mechanical Engineering)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Sciences (specifically Materials Science and Engineering)appeal dismissed, 2020
- Martial Artsappeal dismissed, 2021