Outcome: Dismissed
APR062026_02B2203
Our summary
A business executive claimed extraordinary ability through seven regulatory criteria, including awards and scholarly articles. The AAO found he did not receive a major internationally recognized award and met fewer than three alternate criteria. The appeal was dismissed because initial evidentiary requirements were not satisfied.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS found petitioner met authorship criterion; AAO withdrew this determination on appeal.
What was missing
- Awards · Selection to list not established as major internationally recognized award; nomination criteria do not demonstrate excellence basis.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | SCOPS found petitioner met authorship criterion; AAO withdrew this determination on appeal. | |
| Not met | Selection to list not established as major internationally recognized award; nomination criteria do not demonstrate excellence basis. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Initial evidentiary requirements not met; final merits determination not reached. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
