Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

MAY192026_01B2203

JudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

An economist sought extraordinary ability classification on reopened appeal after a finding that he submitted an altered paper naming him sole author. The AAO upheld the willful misrepresentation finding, concluded the evidentiary criteria and top-of-field standing were not shown, and dismissed the appeal without reaching continued work in the field.

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 · Service center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
  • Leading or critical role · Service center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
  • Membership · Service center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
  • Original contributions · Claim rested on a research paper whose cover page was altered to misstate authorship.
  • Published material · Service center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
  • Scholarly articles · Service center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
  • Final merits · Record did not show the petitioner is among the small percentage at the top.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingNot metService center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
Leading or critical roleNot metService center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
MembershipNot metService center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
Original contributionsNot metClaim rested on a research paper whose cover page was altered to misstate authorship.
Published materialNot metService center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
Scholarly articlesNot metService center found none of the claimed criteria met; AAO concluded eligibility was not shown.
Final meritsNot metRecord did not show the petitioner is among the small percentage at the top.

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.