Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2025Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUL142025_02B2203

High salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Mobile technology consultant appealed denial of EB-1A petition. Although petitioner claimed four criteria met, AAO found published material and leading role criteria not satisfied. Petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and failed to establish extraordinary ability standard.

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

  • High salary · Evidence does not provide comparative salary data for similarly situated individuals in field.
  • Leading or critical role · Promoted to Corporate Operations Officer but employer lacks distinguished reputation in record.
  • Published material · Articles from Vanguard and Guardian websites; insufficient circulation data or evidence of major media status.
  • Final merits · Beneficiary did not meet three criteria; evidence lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
High salaryNot metEvidence does not provide comparative salary data for similarly situated individuals in field.
Leading or critical roleNot metPromoted to Corporate Operations Officer but employer lacks distinguished reputation in record.
Published materialNot metArticles from Vanguard and Guardian websites; insufficient circulation data or evidence of major media status.
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
Scholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed; decision does not analyze this criterion.
Final meritsNot metBeneficiary did not meet three criteria; evidence lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

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.