Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AMarketing, media, communicationsIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

MAY142026_01B2203

AwardsMetJudgingMetPublished materialMetLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

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

  • Awards · Appeal analysis found the awards criterion satisfied, withdrawing the service center's contrary finding.
  • Judging · Service center's finding stood; a single judging event was weighed in the final merits step.
  • Published material · Service center had found it met; the decision accepted this and weighed the material in final merits.

What was missing

  • Final merits · Evidence as a whole did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the small top percentage.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsMetAppeal analysis found the awards criterion satisfied, withdrawing the service center's contrary finding.
JudgingMetService center's finding stood; a single judging event was weighed in the final merits step.
Published materialMetService center had found it met; the decision accepted this and weighed the material in final merits.
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed because the required number of criteria was already satisfied.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed because the required number of criteria was already satisfied.
Final meritsNot metEvidence as a whole did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the small top percentage.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.