Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AComputer science and AIEmployerDecided April 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

APR162026_02B2203

High salaryMetLeading or critical roleMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

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

  • High salary · Service center determined beneficiary satisfied criterion for high salary.
  • Leading or critical role · Service center determined beneficiary satisfied criterion for leading or critical role.

What was missing

  • Awards · Venture capital funding does not qualify as prize or award under regulatory standard.
  • Membership · Membership criteria not met; revenue and title do not signify outstanding achievements; selection process lacked recognized experts.
  • Published material · Publications not established as about beneficiary; sources not demonstrated to be professional or major trade publications.
  • Scholarly articles · Article lacked footnotes, bibliographies, and pre-publication expert review; did not meet scholarly article standard.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
High salaryMetService center determined beneficiary satisfied criterion for high salary.
Leading or critical roleMetService center determined beneficiary satisfied criterion for leading or critical role.
AwardsNot metVenture capital funding does not qualify as prize or award under regulatory standard.
MembershipNot metMembership criteria not met; revenue and title do not signify outstanding achievements; selection process lacked recognized experts.
Published materialNot metPublications not established as about beneficiary; sources not demonstrated to be professional or major trade publications.
Scholarly articlesNot metArticle lacked footnotes, bibliographies, and pre-publication expert review; did not meet scholarly article standard.
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedCriterion not claimed or addressed in the decision.
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedCriterion not applicable to technology executive; not claimed or addressed.
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedCriterion not claimed or addressed in the decision.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedCriterion not claimed or addressed in the decision.
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedBeneficiary failed to meet threshold of three criteria; final merits analysis reserved.

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.