Thermal power generation systems / 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 Thermal power generation systems / Engineering (Engineering), 2020. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration; not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, Original contribution.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 8 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about younot counted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationcounted
- 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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 5 of 40 (13%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 5 of 34 (15%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Published material about you | not counted | 22 of 48 (46%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| 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) |
| Leading role | counted | 24 of 45 (53%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | 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 Director did not adequately weigh the evidence, consider all submitted evidence, or provide sufficient explanation for the denial, particularly regarding published materials and original contributions. The decision lacked a thorough analysis of the totality of the record to determine sustained national or international acclaim and whether the beneficiary is in the very top of their field.
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 October 15, 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: 8, counted: 4 (Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration); not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, Original contribution.
- How did this appeal end?
- The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
- 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
- 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
- Mechanical Engineering and Researchappeal dismissed, 2024
- Business (Pharmaceutical Industry)appeal dismissed, 2022