Logistics Consulting Executive

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold of meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence of membership in the International Association of Engineers (IAENG) or demonstrate that IAENG's membership requirements (which include undergraduate students) necessitate outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts. The AAO reserved discussion on the other two claimed criteria (leading/critical role and high remuneration) as the failure to meet the membership criterion already meant the minimum of three criteria was not satisfied.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient objective evidence to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, participation as a judge of others' work, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, or high remuneration. While two criteria (published material and leading role) were initially met, the evidence was not sustained, and the record did not show the Petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of her field, especially lacking sustained prominence in later years.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner only met the 'judging' criterion. The 'original contributions of major significance' criterion was not met as the Petitioner's product development work, guest lecture, book, and financial work were not shown to have had substantial influence beyond his employers or clients, nor were they considered to be of major significance in the field. The 'scholarly articles' criterion was not met because the submitted book was not considered a scholarly article and was not shown to be published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media for learned persons. The AAO also noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.