EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY052026_03B2203
JudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Judging · Judging student pitch competition does not constitute judging work of professionals in field.
- Leading or critical role · Managing director title alone insufficient; evidence does not establish leading or critical role for organization.
- Original contributions · Petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in aviation technology field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | Judging student pitch competition does not constitute judging work of professionals in field. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Managing director title alone insufficient; evidence does not establish leading or critical role for organization. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in aviation technology field. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal; petitioner did not contest service center decision. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal; petitioner did not contest service center decision. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal; petitioner did not contest service center decision. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Petitioner failed to meet threshold of three criteria; final merits not reached per Bagamasbad. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.