EB-1AFinance and economicsEmployerDecided 2006Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Oct102006_01B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Counsel-represented economist formerly employed by Canadian Department of Finance claims extraordinary ability through awards, publications, critical role, and salary. AAO found witness letters insufficient primary evidence, publications not in major media, role subordinate, and salary unexceptional. Overall evidence failed to demonstrate 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 · Letters not first-hand evidence of sustained acclaim outside affiliated institutions; requirement of recognition beyond close acquaintances unmet
- High salary · No basis for comparison showing compensation significantly high in relation to others in field
- Leading or critical role · Position was subordinate; evidence inadequate to demonstrate leading or critical role for distinguished organization
- Published material · Work not shown to appear in professional, major trade publications, or major media as required
- Final merits · Reliance on witness letters rather than contemporaneous evidence of achievements; failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Letters not first-hand evidence of sustained acclaim outside affiliated institutions; requirement of recognition beyond close acquaintances unmet |
 High salary | Not met | No basis for comparison showing compensation significantly high in relation to others in field |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Position was subordinate; evidence inadequate to demonstrate leading or critical role for distinguished organization |
 Published material | Not met | Work not shown to appear in professional, major trade publications, or major media as required |
 Final merits | Not met | Reliance on witness letters rather than contemporaneous evidence of achievements; failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.