EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided March 2026Remanded
Outcome: Remanded
MAR102026_02B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.
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 · SCOPS found petitioner met judging criterion; AAO did not disturb.
What was missing
- Awards · Fellowship not demonstrated as for excellence in legal field; not exclusive to competitors in field.
- High salary · Comparison methodology flawed: total compensation including bonuses and profit-sharing not comparable to salary-only guides; remanded for reconsideration.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS found petitioner met judging criterion; AAO did not disturb. |
 Awards | Not met | Fellowship not demonstrated as for excellence in legal field; not exclusive to competitors in field. |
 High salary | Not met | Comparison methodology flawed: total compensation including bonuses and profit-sharing not comparable to salary-only guides; remanded for reconsideration. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Not asserted on appeal; claim waived by petitioner. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Not asserted on appeal; claim waived by petitioner. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed in response brief but not asserted on appeal; effectively waived. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed in response brief but not asserted on appeal; effectively waived. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Not asserted on appeal; claim waived by petitioner. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Only two criteria met; final merits determination not reached pending remand. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.