Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided March 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

MAR122026_01B2203

JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

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 · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
  • Leading or critical role · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
  • Scholarly articles · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.

What was missing

  • Final merits · Success and impact appeared limited to his employer; media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top standing.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
Leading or critical roleMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
Scholarly articlesMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedClaimed on appeal but not decided because three criteria were already met.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed on appeal but not decided because three criteria were already met.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed on appeal but not decided because three criteria were already met.
Final meritsNot metSuccess and impact appeared limited to his employer; media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top standing.

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.