EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY152026_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.
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 determined criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
What was missing
- Membership · Petitioner did not establish that membership in conference committees qualifies or provide comparable evidence showing criterion inapplicable
- Original contributions · Petitioner failed to demonstrate work on talent management rose to level of major significance in field
- Published material · Publication about petitioner does not rise to level of major media; petitioner failed to establish significance
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding |
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding |
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner did not establish that membership in conference committees qualifies or provide comparable evidence showing criterion inapplicable |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate work on talent management rose to level of major significance in field |
 Published material | Not met | Publication about petitioner does not rise to level of major media; petitioner failed to establish significance |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Initial evidentiary requirements not satisfied; final merits determination not reached |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.