Outcome: Dismissed
FEB222024_01B2203
Our summary
Employer sponsored beneficiary in business field for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: beneficiary did not receive major internationally recognized award individually, and record did not satisfy three of ten criteria. Award granted to employer, not beneficiary. Overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Award was granted to employer entity, not beneficiary; regulation contemplates individual achievement, not corporate entity recognition.
- Final merits · Beneficiary does not evidence sustained national or international acclaim or standing at very top of field; insufficient criteria met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Award was granted to employer entity, not beneficiary; regulation contemplates individual achievement, not corporate entity recognition. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision waived by petitioner. | |
| Not met | Beneficiary does not evidence sustained national or international acclaim or standing at very top of field; insufficient criteria met. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
