Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided April 2024Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

APR082024_02B2203

JudgingNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

Official PDF

The official PDF link for this decision is being verified.

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

  • Judging · Petitioner submitted altered English translations of evidence; Director found documents willfully altered.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingNot metPetitioner submitted altered English translations of evidence; Director found documents willfully altered.
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived challenge to evidentiary criteria.
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived challenge to evidentiary criteria.
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived challenge to evidentiary criteria.
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived challenge to evidentiary criteria.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived challenge to evidentiary criteria.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived challenge to evidentiary criteria.
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedNot reached; petitioner waived intent requirement and evidentiary criteria challenges.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.