Outcome: Dismissed
JUL172024_02B2203
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
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening | |
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening | |
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied in final decision after reopening | |
| Not met | Evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes insufficient | |
| Not met | Evidence did not establish high salary relative to field | |
| Not met | Failed to demonstrate membership requiring outstanding achievements | |
| Not met | Evidence did not demonstrate original contributions to field | |
| Not met | Submissions did not meet major publication standards | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by Director | |
| Not met | 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 |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
