EB-1AOtherIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC162005_21B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A self-represented petitioner seeking extraordinary ability classification with insufficient documentation. The AAO found awards lacked recognition evidence, membership did not meet criteria, published material was inadequately documented, judging duties were not established as professional-level, and no evidence showed intent to continue work in the United States.
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 · Certificates lack evidence of national or international stature and distribution criteria details
- Judging · Lacks information about nature of duties, individuals evaluated, and their level of professional expertise
- Membership · Association membership based on employment or experience does not constitute outstanding achievement
- Published material · No author identification or evidence of substantial national readership for Beijing Daily News publication
- Final merits · No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in proposed field of expertise
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Certificates lack evidence of national or international stature and distribution criteria details |
 Judging | Not met | Lacks information about nature of duties, individuals evaluated, and their level of professional expertise |
 Membership | Not met | Association membership based on employment or experience does not constitute outstanding achievement |
 Published material | Not met | No author identification or evidence of substantial national readership for Beijing Daily News publication |
 Final merits | Not met | No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in proposed field of expertise |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.