This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy even one of the required three evidentiary criteria. The membership criterion was not met because the petitioner did not demonstrate that FMA or Boston Business Women require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A financial manager petitioned for an EB-1A immigrant visa based on extraordinary ability, claiming eligibility under the membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. SCOPS denied the petition, and the AAO affirmed on appeal. The petitioner submitted evidence of membership in the Financial Management Association and Boston Business Women, but neither organization's materials demonstrated that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The AAO declined to reach the original contributions and leading role criteria because even if both were met, the petitioner could not satisfy the minimum three required criteria. The appeal was dismissed.
What failed: 1. FMA membership evidence showed only a generic 'Professional (Academic or Practitioner)' designation with no documentation of selective admission standards or expert judging requirements. 2. Boston Business Women membership was shown to be a $3/month subscription open to paying members, not a selective association based on outstanding achievements. 3. Appellate arguments asserting professional distinction without documentary support were insufficient to overcome the evidentiary gaps.
Takeaway: For the membership criterion, petitioners must submit direct evidence—such as the association's bylaws, membership standards, or expert letters—showing that the organization requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, not merely that membership reflects professional engagement. Submitting website printouts alone without documenting admission requirements will not satisfy this criterion.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- FMA membership evidence showed only a generic 'Professional (Academic or Practitioner)' designation with no documentation of selective admission standards or expert judging requirements
- Boston Business Women membership was shown to be a $3/month subscription open to paying members, not a selective association based on outstanding achievements
- Appellate arguments asserting professional distinction without documentary support were insufficient to overcome the evidentiary gaps.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metPetitioner claimed membership in FMA and Boston Business Women, but provided no evidence that either organization requires outstanding achievements of members as judged by recognized national or international experts. FMA membership was listed as 'Professional (Academic or Practitioner)' with no eligibility requirements shown; Boston Business Women membership was a $3/month subscription.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metPetitioner claimed eligibility on appeal but AAO declined to reach this criterion because the three-criteria threshold could not be met regardless.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner claimed eligibility on appeal but AAO declined to reach this criterion because the three-criteria threshold could not be met regardless.
FMA website printout showing petitioner listed as 'Professional (Academic or Practitioner)' — no membership requirements or outstanding achievements standard shown
Boston Business Women subscription record showing a $3/month individual membership from May 2022 to August 2022 — no evidence of selective admission criteria or expert judging
Petitioner's unsupported appellate arguments that membership combined with career accomplishments demonstrates professional distinction
Completed
I-140 filed
Financial manager
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-08-22
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy even one of the required three evidentiary criteria. The membership criterion was not met because the petitioner did not demonstrate that FMA or Boston Business Women require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee