EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided December 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC082023_01B2203
Leading or critical roleMetPublished materialMetHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO found published material and leading role criteria met but original contributions lacked field-wide impact and salary evidence was unreliable. Appeal dismissed for failing minimum three-criterion threshold.
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
- Leading or critical role · Director's finding that petitioner performed leading or critical role for distinguished organizations was supported by record.
- Published material · AAO withdrew Director's finding; petitioner submitted articles in professional publications about his business management work.
What was missing
- High salary · Petitioner did not reliably establish annual income amounts due to discrepancies in tax documentation.
- Original contributions · Petitioner did not show contributions had major significance or impact on business management field as a whole.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director's finding that petitioner performed leading or critical role for distinguished organizations was supported by record. |
 Published material | Met | AAO withdrew Director's finding; petitioner submitted articles in professional publications about his business management work. |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner did not reliably establish annual income amounts due to discrepancies in tax documentation. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner did not show contributions had major significance or impact on business management field as a whole. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Did not reach; petitioner failed to meet minimum three of ten evidentiary criteria required. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.