EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided June 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN242026_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Financial executive claimed nine evidentiary criteria. AAO found three criteria met including judging, critical role, and scholarly articles on appeal. Final merits determination found evidence of some recognition insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim among very top of field.
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 · USCIS determined petitioner met criterion relating to judging work of others; decision does not disturb
- Leading or critical role · USCIS determined petitioner met criterion relating to leading or critical role for distinguished organizations; decision does not disturb
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly articles in field in professional publications; criterion satisfied on appeal
What was missing
- Awards · Award from panel evaluating 700 professionals annually on criteria like innovation and impact does not demonstrate national or international acclaim or top tier status
- Final merits · Evidence of awards, memberships, media, judging, contributions, authorship, and salary reflects some recognition but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among small percentage at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | USCIS determined petitioner met criterion relating to judging work of others; decision does not disturb |
 Leading or critical role | Met | USCIS determined petitioner met criterion relating to leading or critical role for distinguished organizations; decision does not disturb |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored scholarly articles in field in professional publications; criterion satisfied on appeal |
 Awards | Not met | Award from panel evaluating 700 professionals annually on criteria like innovation and impact does not demonstrate national or international acclaim or top tier status |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed by petitioner |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; USCIS determined petitioner did not satisfy this criterion |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not satisfy this criterion per USCIS determination |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not satisfy this criterion per USCIS determination |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not satisfy this criterion per USCIS determination |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence of awards, memberships, media, judging, contributions, authorship, and salary reflects some recognition but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among small percentage at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.