EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided December 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC182025_02B2203
JudgingMetMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.
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
- Judging · Record supports SCOPS favorable decision on judging criterion
What was missing
- Membership · Forbes Financial Council membership based on professional qualifications not outstanding achievements; selection committee not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized experts
- Original contributions · Financial structuring and investment assistance not established as original contributions of major significance; subsequent business activities not attributed to petitioner
- Published material · Evidence did not reflect published material about petitioner substantively relating to work; AAO withdrew SCOPS favorable determination
- Final merits · Record insufficient to demonstrate petitioner among small percentage at top of field with sustained national or international acclaim
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Record supports SCOPS favorable decision on judging criterion |
 Membership | Not met | Forbes Financial Council membership based on professional qualifications not outstanding achievements; selection committee not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized experts |
 Original contributions | Not met | Financial structuring and investment assistance not established as original contributions of major significance; subsequent business activities not attributed to petitioner |
 Published material | Not met | Evidence did not reflect published material about petitioner substantively relating to work; AAO withdrew SCOPS favorable determination |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim major internationally recognized award |
 Final merits | Not met | Record insufficient to demonstrate petitioner among small percentage at top of field with sustained national or international acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.