EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided March 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR272025_03B2203
JudgingMetHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A human resources professional in Brazil sought EB-1A classification. She claimed five criteria: membership, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only judging was met and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.
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 determined petitioner participated as judge of work of others in same or allied field.
What was missing
- High salary · High salary alone insufficient; record shows no work in field since 2016; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not demonstrate performing in leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation.
- Membership · Regional psychology council membership is compulsory for practice; does not require outstanding achievement as judged by experts.
- Original contributions · Claimed but decision analyzed and rejected; no evidence of significant original contributions in field.
- Final merits · Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner participated as judge of work of others in same or allied field. |
 High salary | Not met | High salary alone insufficient; record shows no work in field since 2016; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate performing in leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation. |
 Membership | Not met | Regional psychology council membership is compulsory for practice; does not require outstanding achievement as judged by experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Claimed but decision analyzed and rejected; no evidence of significant original contributions in field. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.