EB-1AMarketing, media, communicationsIndividualDecided June 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN022026_04B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.
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 · AAO concluded petitioner met criterion for participation as judge of work of others
- Scholarly articles · AAO found petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles; withdrew SCOPS rejection
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner did not establish awards met regulatory threshold for national or international recognition
- High salary · AAO withdrew SCOPS conclusion; petitioner did not meet high salary criterion
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
- Membership · AAO withdrew SCOPS conclusion that petitioner met this criterion
- Original contributions · Petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance
- Published material · AAO withdrew SCOPS conclusion that petitioner met this criterion
- Final merits · Even with two criteria met, petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | AAO concluded petitioner met criterion for participation as judge of work of others |
 Scholarly articles | Met | AAO found petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles; withdrew SCOPS rejection |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not establish awards met regulatory threshold for national or international recognition |
 High salary | Not met | AAO withdrew SCOPS conclusion; petitioner did not meet high salary criterion |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation |
 Membership | Not met | AAO withdrew SCOPS conclusion that petitioner met this criterion |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance |
 Published material | Not met | AAO withdrew SCOPS conclusion that petitioner met this criterion |
 Final merits | Not met | Even with two criteria met, petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.