Engineer
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 Engineer (Engineering), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship, Exhibitions, Comparable evidence.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 were counted. The criteria were enough to reach final merits, but on the totality of the evidence the petitioner fell short of the extraordinary-ability standard - 3+ criteria alone do not guarantee approval.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot counted
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot counted
- Exhibitionsnot counted
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot counted
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.
Awards
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.
Published material about you
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 793 cases and counted in 286 (36%). Typical AAO objections: "Outlet not shown to be major media"; "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts coverage specifically ABOUT YOU in independent major or trade outlets, with publication details.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
Scholarly authorship
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 473 cases and counted in 360 (76%). Typical AAO objection: "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts scholarly articles in field-specific journals, backed by significance (citations).
Exhibitions
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.
Comparable evidence
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 5 of 40 (13%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | not counted | 22 of 48 (46%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | not counted | 51 of 65 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | not counted | 52 of 65 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Exhibitions | not counted | 0 of 5 (0%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Comparable evidence | not counted | 0 of 2 (0%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Engineering appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the alternate criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence for published material, judging, and scholarly articles was deemed insufficient.
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 May 26, 2021 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 6, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship, Exhibitions, Comparable evidence.
- 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?
- Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Biomedical Engineering / Optical Technologyappeal dismissed, 2024
- Biomedical Engineering/Researchappeal dismissed, 2024
- Construction and Architectural Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2024
- Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2022
- Materials Science and Engineering (Optics and Photonics)appeal dismissed, 2025
- Managed pressure drilling engineerappeal dismissed, 2020
- Sciences (specifically, medicine - gastroenterology/pancreatology)case remanded, 2023