dismissed EB-1A

Electrical Engineer

Electrical Engineer · 2024-07-09

Decision Date
2024-07-09
Location
Nebraska
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

0 of 3 criteria met
Scholarly Articles (Not Met)

The Petitioner claimed research appeared in a journal on social media but did not submit the article or proof of publication.

Original Contributions (Not Met)

The Petitioner did not show he originated the idea of using UV rays to purify air or that he made significant contributions to the advancement of the technology.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to state new facts supported by documentary evidence, and new claims regarding UV air purifiers were not corroborated or shown to exist at the time of filing. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not identify specific errors of law or policy in the previous December 2023 decision.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Patents
Original Contributions
Scholarly Articles
Evidence Submitted
  • Photographs of a UV air purifier prototype
  • Claimed patents (not related to UV air purifiers)
  • Claimed publication on social media (not documented)
  • Assertion of a prototype installed in a classroom

Similar Cases

Unknown Position

Renewable Energy

USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-09
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that published material about him was in professional or major media, that his original contributions were of major significance to the overall field, or that his organization had a distinguished reputation. The AAO found the evidence, including letters and testimonials, to be conclusory and lacking specific details to corroborate major significance or distinguished reputation. The record did not support a conclusion that the Petitioner established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

Engineer

Engineering · Kazakhstan

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
New York 2025-03-31
The Petitioner did not meet any of the 10 EB-1A criteria; specifically, academic honors from Kazakhstan did not qualify as national/international awards, and memberships in IEEE and IISE did not require outstanding achievements. Scholarly articles were not provided or proven to be in major media, and roles as an assembler or ride operator were not leading or critical. No specific citation or publication counts were validated as meeting the regulatory standards.

Entrepreneur

Automotive

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
Texas 2024-02-07
The case was remanded because the Director's decision was insufficient for review, having copied analysis verbatim from a prior denied petition rather than evaluating the new evidence. Specifically, the Director failed to properly assess the 'judging' and 'high salary' criteria based on the current record. The AAO confirmed the Petitioner met the 'scholarly articles' and 'leading or critical roles' criteria but required a re-evaluation of the others to see if the three-criterion threshold was met.

Mechanical Engineer

Engineering

USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-09-05
The AAO affirmed that the petitioner did not meet the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)), finding that evidence of published work, citations, and expert testimonials did not sufficiently demonstrate widespread implementation or major impact beyond the petitioner's employers. The AAO also concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, noting insufficient evidence for the notability of the conference where the petitioner judged and a lack of evidence showing widespread application or significant impact of the petitioner's research in mechanical engineering. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-07-09.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed
Criteria Met 0 / 3
Evidence Types 3

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist