Outcome: Dismissed
APR162026_02B2203
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
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Service center determined beneficiary satisfied criterion for high salary. | |
| Met | Service center determined beneficiary satisfied criterion for leading or critical role. | |
| Not met | Venture capital funding does not qualify as prize or award under regulatory standard. | |
| Not met | Membership criteria not met; revenue and title do not signify outstanding achievements; selection process lacked recognized experts. | |
| Not met | Publications not established as about beneficiary; sources not demonstrated to be professional or major trade publications. | |
| Not met | Article lacked footnotes, bibliographies, and pre-publication expert review; did not meet scholarly article standard. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or addressed in the decision. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not applicable to technology executive; not claimed or addressed. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or addressed in the decision. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or addressed in the decision. | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Beneficiary 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.
