Outcome: Dismissed
AUG132026_02B2203
Our summary
Health technology company petitions for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Beneficiary met six of eight claimed evidentiary criteria, but AAO affirmed denial, finding evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of technology entrepreneurship 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
- Exhibitions · SCOPS determined beneficiary met artistic display criterion.
- High salary · SCOPS determined beneficiary met salary criterion.
- Judging · SCOPS determined beneficiary met judging criterion.
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS determined beneficiary met leading or critical role criterion.
- Original contributions · SCOPS determined beneficiary met authorship/original contributions criterion.
- Published material · SCOPS determined beneficiary met published materials criterion.
What was missing
- Membership · SCOPS found beneficiary does not meet membership criterion.
- Final merits · Evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met artistic display criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met salary criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met judging criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met leading or critical role criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met authorship/original contributions criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met published materials criterion. | |
| Not met | SCOPS found beneficiary does not meet membership criterion. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not assert major internationally recognized award. | |
| Not met | Evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
