This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that although the petitioner met three of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, leading role, and high salary), he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination. His evidence did not establish that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a reservoir management team lead in the petroleum industry, sought EB-1A classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed he met three criteria — judging (paper selection), leading/critical role, and high salary — and proceeded to a final merits determination. However, the AAO found that his overall record, including company awards limited to internal employees, unremarkable membership evidence, internal company publications, and work papers without independent citations, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The decision emphasizes that meeting the numerical threshold of three criteria is only a first step, and the totality of evidence must show the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established three criteria: (1) a leading/critical role as reservoir management team lead; (2) high salary relative to peers; and (3) judging by selecting technical papers for publication.
What failed: Company-specific awards were not shown to involve field-wide competition or national/international recognition. Published material consisted of internal company documents rather than material in major trade publications. Presentations and papers were not shown to be scholarly or cited independently, undermining any claim of widespread impact or acclaim in the field.
Takeaway: Meeting the minimum three criteria is only a threshold — petitioners must also show that their achievements reflect sustained national or international acclaim placing them among the very top of their field. Evidence should include independent recognition from outside one's employer, such as editorial roles at prestigious journals, citations by others, or awards with field-wide competition.
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 successfully established three criteria: (1) a leading/critical role as reservoir management team lead
- (2) high salary relative to peers
- and (3) judging by selecting technical papers for publication.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Company-specific awards were not shown to involve field-wide competition or national/international recognition
- Published material consisted of internal company documents rather than material in major trade publications
- Presentations and papers were not shown to be scholarly or cited independently, undermining any claim of widespread impact or acclaim in the field.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metCompany 'Excellence Award' (2012-2014) was not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized; competition appeared limited to company employees only.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metBoard membership and leadership program invitation did not establish that membership requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published material about the person
Not metInternal company drafting standards, templates, and presentations do not qualify as published material in professional or major trade publications or major media.
Judging the work of others
Reversed in their favorAAO found criterion met based on selecting technical papers for publication; Director had not found this criterion satisfied. However, at final merits stage, judging experience was found insufficient to demonstrate top-of-field acclaim.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metRecommendation letters confirmed contributions to employer but did not show contributions of major significance to the broader field.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metPresentations and work-related papers were not shown to be scholarly in nature or published in professional/major trade publications; proposed research paper was never completed or published; no independent citations demonstrated.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetDirector found and AAO agreed the petitioner's position as reservoir management team lead satisfies the leading or critical role criterion.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetDirector found and AAO agreed the petitioner earns a high salary relative to others in his field.
Completed
I-140 filed
Reservoir management team lead in the petroleum/oil and gas industry
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2018-06-22
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding that although the petitioner met three of ten evidentiary criteria (judging, leading role, and high salary), he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination. His evidence did not establish that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
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.