EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided February 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB132024_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.
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 petitioner met plain language requirements of judging criterion.
- Scholarly articles · Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of authorship of scholarly articles criterion.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Testimony and letters do not establish leading or critical role or that organizations have distinguished reputations.
- Membership · Director found petitioner does not meet membership criterion; not contested on appeal.
- Original contributions · Director found petitioner does not meet original contributions criterion; not contested on appeal.
- Published material · Submitted articles do not satisfy regulatory requirements for title, date, author, and major media publication.
- Final merits · Petitioner met only two criteria; does not satisfy minimum three criteria required for extraordinary ability.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of judging criterion. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of authorship of scholarly articles criterion. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Testimony and letters do not establish leading or critical role or that organizations have distinguished reputations. |
 Membership | Not met | Director found petitioner does not meet membership criterion; not contested on appeal. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Director found petitioner does not meet original contributions criterion; not contested on appeal. |
 Published material | Not met | Submitted articles do not satisfy regulatory requirements for title, date, author, and major media publication. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner met only two criteria; does not satisfy minimum three criteria required for extraordinary ability. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.