How common are denied EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the telematics systems engineer industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The telematics systems engineer sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

dismissed EB-1A

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Telematics Systems Engineer · Russia · 2024-12-03

Decision Date

2024-12-03

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

3 of 3 criteria met

Participation as a judge of the work of others (Met)

The Petitioner's activity as a reviewer of a couple of articles and a contest in 2023 was accepted as meeting this criterion, but it did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Petitioner's publication of a 'moderate' number of scholarly articles satisfied this criterion, but the impact (e.g., journal ranking, citations) was not established to show extraordinary ability.

Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments (Met)

The Petitioner's position as CEO of his company was considered a leading or critical role, but the company's early startup phase and lack of established distinguished reputation meant this role did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)

The 'Engineer of the Year' title was deemed a professional credential rather than an award, given its expiration date and the large number of recipients. Venture capital funding was also not considered a recognized prize or award for excellence.

Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements (Not Met)

The Petitioner did not establish that his memberships in the National Chamber of Engineers and the Union of Machine Engineers require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.

Published material about the individual in professional or major media (Not Met)

Five articles in online Russian-language media in 2022-2023 were submitted, but the record did not show that the Petitioner attracted media coverage while in Russia, and the articles' significance was not established.

Original contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The Petitioner's work improving vehicle models for his employer did not demonstrate wider repercussions in the industry or recognition rising to the level of sustained national or international acclaim beyond the expected role of an engineer.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Although the Petitioner satisfied three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role), the evidence was deemed insufficient. His judging activity (reviewing a couple of articles and a 2023 contest) was too limited and recent. His 'moderate' number of scholarly articles lacked evidence of impact (e.g., journal ranking, citation count). His CEO role in a new startup did not demonstrate a distinguished reputation or broader recognition. Other claims, such as a 'Engineer of the Year' title, were found to be professional credentials rather than awards, and venture capital funding was not considered a recognized prize.

Evidence

Evidence Types

Peer Reviewed Publications

Citations

Awards

Media Coverage

Reference Letters Dependent

Professional Memberships

Judging Experience

Original Contributions

Commercial Success

Evidence Submitted

service as a reviewer of articles and a contest in 2023
publication of a moderate number of scholarly articles
position as CEO of his company
Engineer of the Year competition title in 2020 (one of 51 mechanical engineers, 339 engineers overall, out of 1,381 accolades from 70,000+ participants)
$150,000 in venture capital for his U.S. company (purchase of equity)
five articles in online Russian-language media in 2022 and 2023
membership in the National Chamber of Engineers
membership in the Union of Machine Engineers
five scholarly articles and published conference presentations during graduate studies
a sixth article in Actual Researches in 2023
peer-reviewed manuscripts for Actual Researches
invitation to serve as an honored member of the jury of the 'I I competition
work improving models of vehicles for a Russian truck manufacturer
letters from collaborators and employers discussing a developed telematics platform

Similar Cases

Engineer

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded

2024-08-15

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's denial lacked sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence regarding the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The AAO noted that the Director's conclusory statements did not provide a reasoned consideration of the petition, failing to adequately explain why the Petitioner's evidence was deficient to support his claim of extraordinary ability, despite finding he met four criteria.

General Manager

Petroleum · India

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

Texas 59 days 2024-11-22

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Although he met three initial criteria (leading/critical role, high salary, judging), the evidence, including testimonial letters from colleagues and an economic impact analysis, did not sufficiently prove his contributions were of major significance or widely recognized beyond his immediate professional circle. The decision emphasized that internal company achievements, such as reducing safety incidents to zero and saving over $1 million USD per well, did not translate to national or international acclaim.

Business Development Manager

Telecommunications

USCIS EB-1A dismissed

2024-09-12

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.

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.

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

More dismissed cases More Telecommunications cases More cases from Russia

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-12-03.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed

Criteria Met 3 / 3

Evidence Types 9

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919

Success Rate 53.0%

Sustained 487

Dismissed 315

EB-1A Overview EB-1A in Russia All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

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

Join Waitlist