EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided April 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR242026_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetMembershipMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.
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 · SCOPS determined and AAO affirmed petitioner met criterion for judging work of others.
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS determined and AAO affirmed petitioner met criterion for leading or critical roles.
- Membership · SCOPS determined petitioner met criterion for judging; AAO affirmed this finding.
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS determined and AAO affirmed petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
What was missing
- High salary · AAO withdrew SCOPS finding; petitioner provided no comparable salary ranges for similar positions.
- Final merits · Despite meeting three criteria, petitioner failed final merits test; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined and AAO affirmed petitioner met criterion for judging work of others. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS determined and AAO affirmed petitioner met criterion for leading or critical roles. |
 Membership | Met | SCOPS determined petitioner met criterion for judging; AAO affirmed this finding. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS determined and AAO affirmed petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles. |
 High salary | Not met | AAO withdrew SCOPS finding; petitioner provided no comparable salary ranges for similar positions. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed substantively by AAO. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed substantively by AAO. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed substantively by AAO. |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting three criteria, petitioner failed final merits test; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.