Outcome: Dismissed
MAR132023_03B2203
Our summary
A hospitality entrepreneur and bar professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The Director accepted two, judging and leading role. The AAO agreed on those two but found the awards criterion unmet and deemed scholarly articles waived. It concluded that three criteria were not satisfied and that sustained 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 · Director's favorable finding was agreed with by the AAO.
- Leading or critical role · Director's favorable finding was agreed with by the AAO.
What was missing
- Awards · Certificates lacked proof of national or international recognition and showed inconsistencies about what was awarded.
- Scholarly articles · Director's adverse finding was not disputed on appeal, so the issue was deemed waived.
- Final merits · Record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director's favorable finding was agreed with by the AAO. | |
| Met | Director's favorable finding was agreed with by the AAO. | |
| Not met | Certificates lacked proof of national or international recognition and showed inconsistencies about what was awarded. | |
| Not met | Director's adverse finding was not disputed on appeal, so the issue was deemed waived. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; the available text does not show the decision on this criterion. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; the available text does not show the decision on this criterion. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; the available text does not show the decision on this criterion. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; the available text does not show the decision on this criterion. | |
| Not met | Record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
