EB-1ABusiness and managementIndividualDecided September 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP262025_02B2203
High salaryMetJudgingMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzed
Our summary
A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.
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
- High salary · SCOPS determined criterion met; AAO withdrawn on de novo review for insufficient evidence.
- Judging · SCOPS determined criterion met; AAO withdrawn on de novo review for insufficient evidence.
What was missing
- Awards · Employer awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition beyond the company; no showing of selection criteria or frequency.
- Membership · Claimed associations did not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Met | SCOPS determined criterion met; AAO withdrawn on de novo review for insufficient evidence. |
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined criterion met; AAO withdrawn on de novo review for insufficient evidence. |
 Awards | Not met | Employer awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition beyond the company; no showing of selection criteria or frequency. |
 Membership | Not met | Claimed associations did not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petition did not establish major significant original contributions in field. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petition lacking evidence of published material about petitioner in major media or trade publications. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petition did not demonstrate authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.