Outcome: Dismissed
APR112024_01B2203
Our summary
Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.
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
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award demonstrated
- Judging · Vague letter claims insufficient to show actual participation in judging work of others
- Membership · Letter only repeated regulatory language without establishing outstanding achievement requirement
- Original contributions · Unsubstantiated assertion of contributions without specificity or demonstration of major significance
- Published material · Brief mentions and announcements do not qualify as published material about petitioner's work
- Final merits · Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top percentile status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award demonstrated |
 Judging | Not met | Vague letter claims insufficient to show actual participation in judging work of others |
 Membership | Not met | Letter only repeated regulatory language without establishing outstanding achievement requirement |
 Original contributions | Not met | Unsubstantiated assertion of contributions without specificity or demonstration of major significance |
 Published material | Not met | Brief mentions and announcements do not qualify as published material about petitioner's work |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision |
 Final merits | Not met | Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top percentile status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.