EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR312026_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.
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.
What was missing
- Awards · Funding and awards were not shown to be prizes or nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
- Membership · Association not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. |
 Awards | Not met | Funding and awards were not shown to be prizes or nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. |
 Membership | Not met | Association not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the retained text. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the retained text. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the retained text. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the retained text. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Final merits not analyzed because the initial three-criteria threshold was not satisfied. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.