EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided 2006Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR072006_06B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A business development manager claimed extraordinary ability in sciences and business. The AAO found awards were presented too long ago, the membership claim lacked certified translation and demonstrated no outstanding achievement requirement, judging evidence was untranslated, and letters from supervisors could not establish major contributions beyond direct colleagues. Petitioner met fewer than three criteria.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Awards presented 17 and 19 years before petition; lack of sustained acclaim evidence.
- Judging · Document in Chinese lacked certified translation; insufficient evidence of judging in field.
- Membership · Membership document lacked certified translation; criteria required working in field without outstanding achievement requirement.
- Original contributions · Solicited letters from supervisor cannot establish major contributions beyond limited colleagues; no independent evidence.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet three criteria; record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Awards presented 17 and 19 years before petition; lack of sustained acclaim evidence. |
 Judging | Not met | Document in Chinese lacked certified translation; insufficient evidence of judging in field. |
 Membership | Not met | Membership document lacked certified translation; criteria required working in field without outstanding achievement requirement. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Solicited letters from supervisor cannot establish major contributions beyond limited colleagues; no independent evidence. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet three criteria; record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.