EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY182026_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.
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 found petitioner satisfied criterion for participating as judge of others' work.
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS found petitioner satisfied criterion for leading and critical role in field.
What was missing
- High salary · No documentation of salary or remuneration submitted; cannot determine criterion met without evidence.
- Original contributions · Co-founded hybrid retail concept was original but did not establish major significance in field.
- Published material · Three of four articles lacked named individual authors; one lacked full English translation; did not meet regulatory requirements.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS found petitioner satisfied criterion for participating as judge of others' work. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS found petitioner satisfied criterion for leading and critical role in field. |
 High salary | Not met | No documentation of salary or remuneration submitted; cannot determine criterion met without evidence. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Co-founded hybrid retail concept was original but did not establish major significance in field. |
 Published material | Not met | Three of four articles lacked named individual authors; one lacked full English translation; did not meet regulatory requirements. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; final merits determination reserved as unnecessary. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.