Outcome: Dismissed
APR232020_12B2203
Our summary
A business executive in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria and the AAO found three met. However, the decision rejected the final merits determination, holding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of her field, though she held a high-ranking corporate position.
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
- Judging · Director found criterion satisfied; decision did not disturb this finding
- Leading or critical role · Decision found petitioner demonstrated leading role for distinguished organizations
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; decision did not disturb this finding
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award; provincial-level recognition insufficient
- Final merits · Decision found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied; decision did not disturb this finding | |
| Met | Decision found petitioner demonstrated leading role for distinguished organizations | |
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied; decision did not disturb this finding | |
| Not met | No major internationally recognized award; provincial-level recognition insufficient | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed or discussed | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed or discussed | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed or discussed | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision | |
| Not met | Decision found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
