Testing and Commissioning 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 Testing and Commissioning Engineer (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, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Membership, Judging, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration.
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 counted
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot counted
- 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.
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.
Membership
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.
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.
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.
Leading role
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 624 cases and counted in 256 (41%). Counted when the organization is known and the role is leading or key, per the org chart and letters.
High remuneration
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.
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) |
| Membership | not counted | 5 of 34 (15%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Judging | not counted | 51 of 65 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 18 of 67 (27%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | not counted | 24 of 45 (53%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 9 of 23 (39%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Engineering appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification, and the motions to reopen and reconsider did not address the deficiencies identified in the prior decisions.
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 March 5, 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: 6, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Membership, Judging, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration.
- 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
- 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
- Mechanical Engineering/Roboticsappeal dismissed, 2020
- Engineerappeal dismissed, 2021
- Music (Jazz Percussion)appeal dismissed, 2022