EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided March 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR302026_02B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetPublished materialMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.
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 and AAO determined petitioner satisfied participation as judge
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied leading or critical role
- Published material · SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied this criterion
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied authorship of scholarly articles
What was missing
- Final merits · Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied participation as judge |
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied leading or critical role |
 Published material | Met | SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied this criterion |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS and AAO determined petitioner satisfied authorship of scholarly articles |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; minimum criteria met so decision reserved on additional criteria |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; minimum criteria met so decision reserved on additional criteria |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; minimum criteria met so decision reserved on additional criteria |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.