Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AEducation and academiaIndividualDecided June 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUN112026_02B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

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 · Petitioner demonstrated participation as judge of others' work
  • Scholarly articles · Petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications

What was missing

  • Leading or critical role · Evidence did not establish leading or critical role at distinguished organization
  • Original contributions · Evidence did not establish major significance of contributions to field of educational planning
  • Published material · Materials in Daily Nation and FinTech News Africa were promotional, not published material about petitioner
  • Final merits · Meeting only two criteria insufficient; petitioner not among small percentage at top of field

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetPetitioner demonstrated participation as judge of others' work
Scholarly articlesMetPetitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications
Leading or critical roleNot metEvidence did not establish leading or critical role at distinguished organization
Original contributionsNot metEvidence did not establish major significance of contributions to field of educational planning
Published materialNot metMaterials in Daily Nation and FinTech News Africa were promotional, not published material about petitioner
Final meritsNot metMeeting only two criteria insufficient; petitioner not among small percentage at top of 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.