Mechanical Technician

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that membership in ASME required outstanding achievements, nor did they prove a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. While the judging criterion was met, the other two claimed criteria were not, leading to a failure to meet the minimum three criteria. The issue of high remuneration and the suitability of the Petitioner's field (mechanic) for EB-1A were reserved.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only met two of the ten regulatory criteria (published material and judging). Specifically, evidence for original contributions lacked objective proof of broad impact, and the high salary claim was unsupported as the Petitioner's earnings as a business owner were not comparable to technician salaries.

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.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only satisfied one criterion (judging) out of the required three. The evidence for memberships was rejected as it described certification rather than membership; original contributions were not supported by independent evidence of industry-wide adoption; and the leading/critical role evidence lacked specific metrics to show importance to the organizations' overall activities.