EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided June 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN242026_02B2203
MembershipNot metPublished materialNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A financial portfolio strategist in Canada claimed six EB-1A criteria but met only three per USCIS. On appeal, the AAO found the membership and published material criteria unmet and concluded the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status in finance.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Membership · Fellow membership at Canadian Securities Institute does not require outstanding achievement as essential condition.
- Published material · Articles lacked author attribution, full translations, or focus on petitioner rather than employer.
- Final merits · Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top echelon status in field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Membership | Not met | Fellow membership at Canadian Securities Institute does not require outstanding achievement as essential condition. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles lacked author attribution, full translations, or focus on petitioner rather than employer. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision focused on three other criteria and final merits. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision focused on three other criteria and final merits. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision focused on three other criteria and final merits. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision focused on three other criteria and final merits. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top echelon status in field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.