EB-1AOtherIndividualDecided August 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG172023_01B2203
Leading or critical roleMetMembershipMetScholarly articlesMetJudgingNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Fire prevention specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner satisfied three criteria: membership, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO held final merits prong failed: although respected locally and in capital city, petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required; articles had limited impact; patents unproven in commercial production or significance.
Official PDF
The official PDF link for this decision is being verified.
Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Leading or critical role · Service center found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal.
- Membership · Service center found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal.
- Scholarly articles · Service center found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal.
What was missing
- Judging · Claimed but service center found criterion not satisfied; appeal did not challenge this conclusion.
- Final merits · Three criteria met but final merits determination shows petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim; recognition limited to local jurisdiction, not national or international scale.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Service center found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal. |
 Membership | Met | Service center found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Service center found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal. |
 Judging | Not met | Claimed but service center found criterion not satisfied; appeal did not challenge this conclusion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Three criteria met but final merits determination shows petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim; recognition limited to local jurisdiction, not national or international scale. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.