This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that although the Beneficiary met the initial evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field of mechanical engineering.
A manufacturer of construction and mining equipment sought EB-1B classification for a mechanical engineer specializing in diesel engine simulation tools. The Nebraska Service Center director found the Beneficiary met three of the six evidentiary criteria (scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging), but denied the petition after a final merits determination. On appeal, the Petitioner challenged the validity of the Kazarian two-step framework, but the AAO upheld it as legally sound and consistent with recent federal court decisions. The AAO found that while the Beneficiary's research had been cited by others and he had reviewed manuscripts for numerous journals, the reference letters were conclusory, lacked comparative context, and the evidence as a whole failed to demonstrate that he stands apart from other researchers internationally. The appeal was dismissed.
What failed: 1. Peer review for ~28 journals was insufficient without evidence that only top experts are selected as reviewers, and email evidence actually showed reviewers are just the 'first step' in quality control. 2. Reference letters described the importance of the Beneficiary's research area rather than his specific standing in the field, and made conclusory claims without comparative support. 3. Citation counts (56 total) were described as 'notable' but lacked comparative data showing they reflect international recognition as outstanding, and citing authors cited hundreds or thousands of other sources alongside the Beneficiary's work.
Takeaway: For EB-1B petitions, reference letters and citation evidence must go beyond praising the research area—they must specifically demonstrate that the beneficiary stands above peers internationally, supported by comparative metrics and concrete examples of unique impact. Peer review evidence should be bolstered by proof that only highly recognized researchers are selected for those specific journals.
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-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Peer review for ~28 journals was insufficient without evidence that only top experts are selected as reviewers, and email evidence actually showed reviewers are just the 'first step' in quality control
- Reference letters described the importance of the Beneficiary's research area rather than his specific standing in the field, and made conclusory claims without comparative support
- Citation counts (56 total) were described as 'notable' but lacked comparative data showing they reflect international recognition as outstanding, and citing authors cited hundreds or thousands of other sources alongside the Beneficiary's work.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Published material about the person
Not metPetitioner claimed this criterion was also met; AAO declined to adjudicate it separately since the initial evidence threshold was already cleared, but noted that articles citing a beneficiary's work as one of multiple footnotes are not generally 'about' the beneficiary's work.
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found criterion met; Beneficiary served as peer reviewer for 28 journals and conferences. AAO considered this in final merits but found it insufficient to show international recognition as outstanding.
Original contributions of major significance
MetDirector found criterion met; Beneficiary made original scientific contributions to mechanical engineering. Director's analysis was noted to be somewhat unclear but conclusion of met was not disturbed.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetDirector found criterion met; Beneficiary authored scholarly books and articles in the field.
Completed
I-140 filed
Engineer developing simulation tools for high efficiency diesel engine analysis
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-09-13
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that although the Beneficiary met the initial evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish that he is internationally recognized as outstanding in his academic field of mechanical engineering.
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.