EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided November 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
NOV202025_02B2203
AwardsNot metMembershipNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An economist in financial inclusion and innovation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.
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 received for services, teamwork, and analysis were not based on excellence in the field of financial inclusion and innovation as required.
- Membership · Claimed membership association not in field of financial inclusion and innovation; membership requirements based on grade point average and dues do not constitute outstanding achievement.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at top of field in financial inclusion and innovation.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Awards received for services, teamwork, and analysis were not based on excellence in the field of financial inclusion and innovation as required. |
 Membership | Not met | Claimed membership association not in field of financial inclusion and innovation; membership requirements based on grade point average and dues do not constitute outstanding achievement. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; SCOPS decided petitioner failed to satisfy claimed criteria; AAO did not individually address this criterion. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; SCOPS decided petitioner failed to satisfy claimed criteria; AAO did not individually address this criterion. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; SCOPS decided petitioner failed to satisfy claimed criteria; AAO did not individually address this criterion. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; SCOPS decided petitioner failed to satisfy claimed criteria; AAO did not individually address this criterion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at top of field in financial inclusion and innovation. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.