Outcome: Dismissed
OCT162024_01B2203
Our summary
A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify which of the ten regulatory criteria she claimed to meet or how her evidence related to each criterion, making substantive analysis impossible.
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
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner failed to identify which regulatory criteria she claimed to meet; no substantive analysis performed | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not identify criteria | |
| Not reached / not discussed | First step criteria not met; final merits determination not reached |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
