This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (leading/critical role and high salary), falling short of the minimum needed to proceed to a final merits determination.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a strategic port planner with over 25 years of maritime infrastructure experience, sought EB-1A classification. The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, finding no evidentiary criteria met. On appeal, the AAO reversed the Director on two criteria — finding the petitioner did perform a leading role as Global Practice Leader for Maritime at a distinguished firm, and did command a significantly high salary relative to peers. However, the AAO upheld denials of the membership, published material, and original contributions criteria. Since only two of the required three criteria were met, the petition could not advance to a final merits determination, and the appeal was dismissed.
What worked: The petitioner's evidence of a titled leadership role (Global Practice Leader for Maritime) at a well-documented engineering firm persuaded the AAO on the leading role criterion. Salary documentation — including offer letters showing $252,000+ and comparative BLS and Australian industry data — successfully established a significantly high salary. The petitioner also successfully reversed the Director's finding on intent to continue work in the area of expertise.
What failed: Membership in PIANC and a board position at an Australian logistics body failed because the petitioner did not document the organizations' membership selection criteria or that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Published material failed because the articles either lacked identified authors, used a non-major platform, or were only tangentially about the petitioner. Original contributions of major significance failed because reference letters, while attesting to high-profile work on major port projects, described impact on specific clients and projects rather than demonstrating field-wide significance.
Takeaway: Port planning and infrastructure consultants seeking EB-1A classification must go beyond demonstrating involvement in high-profile projects: for the contributions criterion, evidence must explicitly connect the petitioner's specific original work to measurable, field-wide impact. For the membership criterion, always obtain written documentation of the organization's selection criteria and the qualifications of those who judge applicants.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner's evidence of a titled leadership role (Global Practice Leader for Maritime) at a well-documented engineering firm persuaded the AAO on the leading role criterion
- Salary documentation — including offer letters showing $252,000+ and comparative BLS and Australian industry data — successfully established a significantly high salary
- The petitioner also successfully reversed the Director's finding on intent to continue work in the area of expertise.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Membership in PIANC and a board position at an Australian logistics body failed because the petitioner did not document the organizations' membership selection criteria or that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
- Published material failed because the articles either lacked identified authors, used a non-major platform, or were only tangentially about the petitioner
- Original contributions of major significance failed because reference letters, while attesting to high-profile work on major port projects, described impact on specific clients and projects rather than demonstrating field-wide significance.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metMembership in PIANC and board position on an Australian logistics organization did not demonstrate that outstanding achievements were required for membership as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles in World Maritime News, Port Finance International, Ports Australia Newsletter, and a blog either lacked authors, failed to constitute major media, or were not about the petitioner — only briefly quoting or mentioning him or his consultancy.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metLetters from colleagues and clients attested to high-profile consulting work on major port projects, but did not demonstrate how contributions impacted the field at large rather than specific projects or organizations.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed the Director's finding; letter evidence established petitioner served as Global Practice Leader for Maritime at a firm with a distinguished reputation, responsible for building a new maritime practice in Australia and South Asia.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed the Director's finding; salary of approximately $252,000 plus bonus, supported by BLS data showing top 10% of civil engineers earned $132,880, and Australian engineering salary comparisons, established a significantly high salary relative to others in the field.
Petitioner's statements and documentation describing U.S. port planning projects, including work on the Ports of New York and New Jersey, establishing intent to continue work in area of expertise
Letter from practice leader-maritime attesting to petitioner's role as Global Practice Leader for Maritime at a distinguished engineering firm, tasked with building a new maritime practice
Articles establishing the distinguished reputation of the engineering firm where petitioner served as global director
Offer of employment letter showing salary of $252,000 plus $48,000 bonus
Pay statement showing year-to-date income of approximately $293,000 annualized
BLS data showing top 10% of civil engineers earned $132,880 in the U.S.
Australian Professional Engineers Employment and Remuneration Report showing petitioner's income far exceeded upper quartile of highest wages
PIANC membership invoice — no evidence that membership required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts
Email chain accepting board position at Australian logistics organization — no evidence of selection criteria or that board membership required outstanding achievements judged by experts
Petitioner's unsupported comparison of himself to other board members without corroborating evidence of their qualifications or the selection process
Articles in World Maritime News, Port Finance International, and Ports Australia Newsletter — three lacked identified authors and none were primarily about the petitioner
Blog post on voakl.net — not established as a professional or major trade publication or major media
Letters from colleagues and clients regarding port planning consulting work — described high-profile projects but did not establish how contributions impacted the field at large or constituted original contributions of major significance
The Director erroneously found the petitioner had not demonstrated intent to continue work in his area of expertise, which the AAO reversed based on the petitioner's statements and evidence of U.S. projects.
The Director erroneously denied the leading/critical role criterion (viii); the AAO found the petitioner's Global Practice Leader role at a distinguished firm satisfied the criterion.
The Director erroneously denied the high salary criterion (ix); the AAO found salary documentation and comparative data sufficiently established this criterion.
Completed
I-140 filed
Strategic port planner and maritime infrastructure consultant
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2019-08-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (leading/critical role and high salary), falling short of the minimum needed to proceed to a final merits determination.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee