Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided May 2025Remanded

Outcome: Remanded

MAY282025_05B2203

AwardsNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Entrepreneur claimed nine EB-1A criteria but met only two, short of three required. AAO withdrew contradictory SCOPS findings on awards and membership, rejected published material claim, but found petitioner met the threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

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

  • Awards · Awards lack national or international recognition; online news articles insufficient to establish recognition
  • Membership · Associations do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
  • Published material · Published articles discuss company but do not mention petitioner specifically in connection with work
  • Final merits · Petitioner met insufficient criteria for evidentiary prong; final merits determination required on remand

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metAwards lack national or international recognition; online news articles insufficient to establish recognition
MembershipNot metAssociations do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
Published materialNot metPublished articles discuss company but do not mention petitioner specifically in connection with work
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed
Final meritsNot metPetitioner met insufficient criteria for evidentiary prong; final merits determination required on remand

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.