EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided August 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG302022_01B2203
JudgingMetPublished materialMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.
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
- Judging · Director determined petitioner satisfied this criterion; AAO affirmed.
- Published material · Forbes article and magazine editor letter satisfy criterion for published material about individual.
What was missing
- Awards · Forbes recognition and My Kharkov ranking do not constitute prizes or awards for excellence.
- Membership · No evidence that position or program requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Original contributions · No evidence of major significance; innovations lack widespread implementation or demonstrated field impact.
- Final merits · Petitioner demonstrated only two criteria and failed to show sustained recognition outside organizations where he worked.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner satisfied this criterion; AAO affirmed. |
 Published material | Met | Forbes article and magazine editor letter satisfy criterion for published material about individual. |
 Awards | Not met | Forbes recognition and My Kharkov ranking do not constitute prizes or awards for excellence. |
 Membership | Not met | No evidence that position or program requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | No evidence of major significance; innovations lack widespread implementation or demonstrated field impact. |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Not mentioned as claimed or discussed in decision. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Not mentioned as claimed or discussed in decision. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Not mentioned as claimed or discussed in decision. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Not mentioned as claimed or discussed in decision. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Not mentioned as claimed or analyzed in decision. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner demonstrated only two criteria and failed to show sustained recognition outside organizations where he worked. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.