This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging). The AAO also reversed the Director's finding that the published material criterion was met.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A civil engineer specializing in transportation infrastructure sought EB-1A classification but was denied by the Texas Service Center for failing to meet three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO upheld most of the Director's findings and went further by reversing the one criterion the Director had granted — published material — because articles appeared in non-qualifying outlets lacking required author/date information or major media standing. The petitioner's ASCE membership fell short because the 'Member' grade does not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Recommendation letters about original engineering contributions described only employer-level impact without showing broader field-wide significance. The petitioner's salary of approximately $97,500–$105,000 did not exceed the 75th percentile benchmark for civil engineers nationally, failing to demonstrate a 'high salary.' Because the petitioner could not clear even the initial three-criteria threshold, no final merits determination was conducted.
What worked: The petitioner successfully demonstrated the judging criterion, which was affirmed by the AAO.
What failed: 1) Published material: articles lacked required metadata or appeared on non-qualifying platforms with unproven major media status. 2) Original contributions: recommendation letters described project-specific accomplishments but failed to show influence on the broader civil engineering field beyond the employer. 3) High salary: earnings at or below the 75th BLS percentile for civil engineers do not constitute a 'high salary'; comparison data from self-reporting salary websites was also unreliable.
Takeaway: For EB-1A petitions in engineering, petitioners must document field-wide impact of original contributions with independent corroborating evidence (citations, adoption by others, industry recognition), not just employer or client testimonials. Salary evidence should target the 90th percentile or above using authoritative BLS data, and any published media must demonstrably qualify as professional or major trade publications with complete bibliographic information.
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 demonstrated the judging criterion, which was affirmed by the AAO.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- 1) Published material: articles lacked required metadata or appeared on non-qualifying platforms with unproven major media status
- 2) Original contributions: recommendation letters described project-specific accomplishments but failed to show influence on the broader civil engineering field beyond the employer
- 3) High salary: earnings at or below the 75th BLS percentile for civil engineers do not constitute a 'high salary'
- comparison data from self-reporting salary websites was also unreliable.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metNot contested on appeal; deemed abandoned.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metASCE 'Member' grade does not require 'outstanding achievements' as judged by recognized national/international experts; higher grades (Fellow, Distinguished Member) set a higher bar.
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed the Director's grant of this criterion. The Globee article lacked required date and author; NewsBreak.com article appeared to be promotional content on an open-source platform, and petitioner failed to show NewsBreak.com qualifies as major media.
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO affirmed.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metRecommendation letters described impact on employer projects but failed to show substantial influence beyond the employer or widespread recognition in the field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metNot contested on appeal; deemed abandoned.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metBase salary of $97,500–$105,000 did not exceed the 75th percentile for civil engineers nationally; comparison data from Payscale, Salary.com, and Comparably was unreliable self-reported data, and petitioner showed only above-average rather than high salary.
Judging criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) was met — affirmed from Director's decision
ASCE 'Member' certificate and bylaws — membership grade does not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
Globee article — missing required date and author information
NewsBreak.com article — likely promotional/marketing content on open-source platform; insufficient evidence of major media status
Similarweb.com traffic data for NewsBreak.com — limited comparison set cherry-picked by petitioner, excluding higher-readership local outlets
Recommendation letters on original contributions — described project-level impact without showing influence on the broader field beyond employer clients
Texas DOT public meeting notice — did not mention petitioner or highlight major significance of contributions
Base salary of $97,500–$105,000 — below the 75th percentile national BLS benchmark for civil engineers
Payscale.com, Salary.com, and Comparably.com salary data — self-reported, potentially unreliable comparison
The Director erroneously found the published material criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) satisfied; the AAO reversed this finding because the Globee article lacked required date and author, and the NewsBreak.com article was likely promotional content on an open-source platform without demonstrated major media status.
Completed
I-140 filed
Civil/transportation engineer working on roadway design and infrastructure projects in Texas
Completed
Director, Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-11-12
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging). The AAO also reversed the Director's finding that the published material criterion was met.
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