EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided April 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR162026_03B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A digital health communications influencer and public health educator sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two criteria met; the AAO on appeal reconsidered and found insufficient evidence for the high salary criterion, leaving petitioner below the three-criterion threshold.
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 · Lesser recognized awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition
- High salary · Petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence of salary relative to others in field
- Leading or critical role · Organizations lacked established distinguished reputation; evidence insufficient to show critical role
- Published material · Interviews not published in major media; insufficient documentation of circulation or viewership significance
- Final merits · Did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability finding
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Lesser recognized awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence of salary relative to others in field |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Organizations lacked established distinguished reputation; evidence insufficient to show critical role |
 Published material | Not met | Interviews not published in major media; insufficient documentation of circulation or viewership significance |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in substantive detail |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in substantive detail |
 Final merits | Not met | Did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability finding |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.