EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided October 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT252023_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Director found and AAO affirmed evidence of participation as judge of work of others in same or allied field.
- Scholarly articles · Director found and AAO affirmed evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
What was missing
- Awards · No evidence of major awards, prizes, or recognitions in business development field.
- High salary · Salary discrepancies in record and lack of objective comparative data showing earnings high relative to other chief executives in field.
- Leading or critical role · Evidence provided but did not establish leading or critical role for distinguished organization.
- Membership · Membership evidence submitted but did not meet criterion requiring recognition of outstanding achievements by recognized experts.
- Original contributions · Evidence provided but did not establish major significant contributions of national or international impact.
- Published material · No evidence of published material about petitioner or achievements in major media.
- Final merits · Failed to establish three criteria; evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim and place among small percentage at top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found and AAO affirmed evidence of participation as judge of work of others in same or allied field. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found and AAO affirmed evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications. |
 Awards | Not met | No evidence of major awards, prizes, or recognitions in business development field. |
 High salary | Not met | Salary discrepancies in record and lack of objective comparative data showing earnings high relative to other chief executives in field. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Evidence provided but did not establish leading or critical role for distinguished organization. |
 Membership | Not met | Membership evidence submitted but did not meet criterion requiring recognition of outstanding achievements by recognized experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Evidence provided but did not establish major significant contributions of national or international impact. |
 Published material | Not met | No evidence of published material about petitioner or achievements in major media. |
 Final merits | Not met | Failed to establish three criteria; evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim and place among small percentage at top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.