EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided December 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC122024_02B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.
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 · Training completion certificates are not prizes or awards; employer letters lack documentation of award significance or recipient criteria.
- High salary · Evidence from Glassdoor published after petition filing; salary documentation does not establish comparison to others in field.
- Judging · Selecting models for fashion shows does not constitute judging work of others in retail or allied field.
- Leading or critical role · Role at company was not leading or critical; insufficient evidence of company's distinguished reputation.
- Original contributions · Employer letters describe roles and responsibilities but lack evidence of original contributions of major significance.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Training completion certificates are not prizes or awards; employer letters lack documentation of award significance or recipient criteria. |
 High salary | Not met | Evidence from Glassdoor published after petition filing; salary documentation does not establish comparison to others in field. |
 Judging | Not met | Selecting models for fashion shows does not constitute judging work of others in retail or allied field. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Role at company was not leading or critical; insufficient evidence of company's distinguished reputation. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Employer letters describe roles and responsibilities but lack evidence of original contributions of major significance. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria; final merits determination not required. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.