EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided December 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC082025_01B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.
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
- Awards · Claimed cooking competition award was not in field of business administration or entrepreneurship; does not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prize
- Judging · Judging experience was in culinary arts field, not applicant's stated field of business administration
- Membership · Membership in NSLS requires academic excellence and leadership training but not outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in business field
- Final merits · Decision reviews record in aggregate and concludes applicant has not established acclaim and recognition required for extraordinary ability classification
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Claimed cooking competition award was not in field of business administration or entrepreneurship; does not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prize |
 Judging | Not met | Judging experience was in culinary arts field, not applicant's stated field of business administration |
 Membership | Not met | Membership in NSLS requires academic excellence and leadership training but not outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in business field |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision did not reach this criterion |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision did not reach this criterion |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision focused on first three criteria and found initial evidence requirements not met |
 Final merits | Not met | Decision reviews record in aggregate and concludes applicant has not established acclaim and recognition required for extraordinary ability classification |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.