Outcome: Dismissed
AUG162024_03B2203
Our summary
Construction business manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted untranslated materials without explaining which criteria addressed, failed timely RFE response, and provided only generic client appreciation letters. Appeal dismissed for failure to identify grounds.
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
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to identify criteria or provide timely RFE response. | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Two support letters from clients lacked specificity on projects and did not address criteria or demonstrate extraordinary ability. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
