Outcome: Dismissed
FEB132026_03B2203
Our summary
Agricultural economist claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Submitted evidence for five criteria: awards, high salary, original contributions, leading role, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; awards lack national/international recognition, salary comparison improper, and original contributions lack sufficient field impact. Fails three-criterion threshold.
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
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner satisfies authorship of scholarly articles criterion; sole criterion met.
What was missing
- Awards · Three claimed awards lack probative evidence of being nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field; local or regional recognition only.
- High salary · Comparison between Turkey earnings and unrelated U.S. occupation fails to meet plain language requirement for comparative evidence in the same field.
- Original contributions · Evidence does not demonstrate sufficiently appreciable impact of contributions on the field as a whole.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Petitioner satisfies authorship of scholarly articles criterion; sole criterion met. | |
| Not met | Three claimed awards lack probative evidence of being nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field; local or regional recognition only. | |
| Not met | Comparison between Turkey earnings and unrelated U.S. occupation fails to meet plain language requirement for comparative evidence in the same field. | |
| Not met | Evidence does not demonstrate sufficiently appreciable impact of contributions on the field as a whole. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision reserves analysis because petitioner cannot numerically meet three-criterion threshold. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or analyzed; petitioner does not meet three-criterion threshold so criterion not reached. | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Petitioner does not meet initial evidence threshold of three criteria; final merits determination reserved. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
