Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided July 2024Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUL172024_02B2203

JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

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 found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening
  • Leading or critical role · Director found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening
  • Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening

What was missing

  • Awards · Evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes insufficient
  • High salary · Evidence did not establish high salary relative to field
  • Membership · Failed to demonstrate membership requiring outstanding achievements
  • Original contributions · Evidence did not demonstrate original contributions to field
  • Published material · Submissions did not meet major publication standards
  • Final merits · Despite meeting three initial criteria, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the very top of the field

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetDirector found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening
Leading or critical roleMetDirector found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening
Scholarly articlesMetDirector found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening
AwardsNot metEvidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes insufficient
High salaryNot metEvidence did not establish high salary relative to field
MembershipNot metFailed to demonstrate membership requiring outstanding achievements
Original contributionsNot metEvidence did not demonstrate original contributions to field
Published materialNot metSubmissions did not meet major publication standards
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed by Director
Final meritsNot metDespite meeting three initial criteria, final merits determination found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the very top of the field

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.