Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided November 2023Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

NOV152023_02B2203

AwardsNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A Bangladeshi writer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting six regulatory criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding willful misrepresentation of material facts through falsified news articles and determining the petitioner did not meet the required three criteria.

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 · Petitioner submitted letters from awarding entities only, not independent evidence of national or international recognition of prizes.
  • Membership · Claimed associations did not have membership requirements for outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
  • Published material · Genuine articles about petitioner appeared in short window; falsified articles submitted lacked credibility.
  • Final merits · Petitioner failed to satisfy three of ten regulatory criteria; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metPetitioner submitted letters from awarding entities only, not independent evidence of national or international recognition of prizes.
MembershipNot metClaimed associations did not have membership requirements for outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
Published materialNot metGenuine articles about petitioner appeared in short window; falsified articles submitted lacked credibility.
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in decision.
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed in decision.
Final meritsNot metPetitioner failed to satisfy three of ten regulatory criteria; no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated.

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.