Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AFinance and economicsEmployerDecided 2013Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

FEB062013_01B2203

JudgingMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Real estate professional claimed extraordinary ability based on innovative underwriting methodology and other criteria. AAO affirmed that judging criterion was met but rejected the original contributions claim because the beneficiary's involvement was insufficiently significant and showed no major field impact. Appeal dismissed.

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 · Director determined sufficient evidence; AAO affirmed this finding

What was missing

  • Original contributions · Contribution to underwriting process insufficient; no demonstrable impact on field
  • Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; overall eligibility not established

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetDirector determined sufficient evidence; AAO affirmed this finding
Original contributionsNot metContribution to underwriting process insufficient; no demonstrable impact on field
Final meritsNot metPetitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; overall eligibility not established

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.