Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AAgriculture and foodIndividualDecided February 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

FEB132026_03B2203

Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

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

CriterionReadingWhy
Scholarly articlesMetPetitioner satisfies authorship of scholarly articles criterion; sole criterion met.
AwardsNot metThree claimed awards lack probative evidence of being nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field; local or regional recognition only.
High salaryNot metComparison between Turkey earnings and unrelated U.S. occupation fails to meet plain language requirement for comparative evidence in the same field.
Original contributionsNot metEvidence does not demonstrate sufficiently appreciable impact of contributions on the field as a whole.
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but decision reserves analysis because petitioner cannot numerically meet three-criterion threshold.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedCriterion not claimed or analyzed; petitioner does not meet three-criterion threshold so criterion not reached.
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedPetitioner 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.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.