EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided September 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP192025_03B2203
Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A financial accountant claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A through multiple criteria. The AAO found only one criterion satisfied (scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Published material lacked major media publication, leading role lacked organizational distinction, and salary comparison data was inapplicable. Appeal dismissed.
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
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding despite withdrawing published material determination.
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner did not establish receipt of major internationally recognized award; claim waived on appeal.
- High salary · Comparative salary data provided applies to different position and does not show salary high relative to field.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner demonstrated critical role but organization lacks evidence of distinguished reputation in field.
- Published material · Articles submitted lack evidence of publication in major trade or major media outlets about petitioner and work.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding despite withdrawing published material determination. |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not establish receipt of major internationally recognized award; claim waived on appeal. |
 High salary | Not met | Comparative salary data provided applies to different position and does not show salary high relative to field. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner demonstrated critical role but organization lacks evidence of distinguished reputation in field. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles submitted lack evidence of publication in major trade or major media outlets about petitioner and work. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Threshold initial evidence requirements not met; final merits analysis reserved. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.