Outcome: Dismissed
DEC102025_04B2203
Our summary
A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria; SCOPS found two met (leading role and high salary) but the AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two criteria when three minimum were required, and the overall evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value.
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
- High salary · SCOPS acknowledged and analyzed this criterion; decision states petitioner satisfied this criterion.
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS acknowledged and analyzed this criterion; decision states petitioner satisfied this criterion.
What was missing
- Judging · Informal mentorship and evaluative activities do not constitute formal judging designation required by criterion.
- Membership · Membership in CBM alone insufficient; regulation requires plural membership, and CBM does not require outstanding achievements.
- Original contributions · Support letters insufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance to rally racing field.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | SCOPS acknowledged and analyzed this criterion; decision states petitioner satisfied this criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS acknowledged and analyzed this criterion; decision states petitioner satisfied this criterion. | |
| Not met | Informal mentorship and evaluative activities do not constitute formal judging designation required by criterion. | |
| Not met | Membership in CBM alone insufficient; regulation requires plural membership, and CBM does not require outstanding achievements. | |
| Not met | Support letters insufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance to rally racing field. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim major internationally recognized award; regulation requires three of ten alternate criteria. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed or analyzed. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail. | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
