This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. Only the judging criterion was found satisfied.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A Nepali sub-editor and journalist filed an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition, claiming to meet all ten evidentiary criteria. The Texas Service Center director denied the petition, finding only the judging criterion satisfied. On de novo appeal, the AAO agreed, finding that claimed awards lacked proof of national or international recognition, membership organizations were not sufficiently exclusive, published articles lacked required details or were not shown to be major media, submitted articles were general-readership rather than scholarly, and the petitioner's salary evidence conflated journalism income with fees from schools and non-journalism consulting. Because the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold, no final merits determination was conducted. The appeal was dismissed.
What worked: Participation as a judge of others' work (criterion iv) was the only criterion sustained, based on evidence in the record.
What failed: Award evidence lacked proof of national or international recognition and had no media coverage. Salary evidence included income from schools and non-journalism clients, obscuring journalism-specific pay. Letters supporting the leading role and salary claims were insufficiently detailed or appeared to have a common author, undermining their credibility.
Takeaway: Journalists seeking EB-1A classification must clearly document that awards are nationally or internationally recognized (e.g., through media coverage), that salary comparisons are limited to journalism-specific earnings with objective benchmarks, and that supporting letters are detailed, independently authored, and compare the petitioner's role to peers at the organization.
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
- Participation as a judge of others' work (criterion iv) was the only criterion sustained, based on evidence in the record.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Award evidence lacked proof of national or international recognition and had no media coverage
- Salary evidence included income from schools and non-journalism clients, obscuring journalism-specific pay
- Letters supporting the leading role and salary claims were insufficiently detailed or appeared to have a common author, undermining their credibility.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metTwo claimed awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition; no media coverage of the awards at the time of receipt was shown.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metPetitioner's memberships in Sancharika Samuha and FNJ (a trade union with 10,000+ members) did not require outstanding achievements of members.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles initially submitted were authored by petitioner, not about her; post-filing articles ineligible; remaining articles lacked authors' names and were not shown to be major media.
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO agreed.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metAAO reserved judgment on this criterion as it could not change the outcome given fewer than three criteria were met.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metSubmitted articles were for general readership on non-scholarly topics; did not qualify as scholarly articles.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner established organization's distinguished reputation but did not show her sub-editor role was leading or critical; insufficient detail about her specific contributions versus others.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metCombined income figure included consulting fees from schools and other non-journalism employers; journalist-specific salary not established; supporting letters appeared to share a common author (possibly the petitioner).
Commercial successes in the performing arts
Not metJournalism is not the performing arts; no box office receipts or sales figures submitted; high salary argument inapplicable.
Completed
I-140 filed
Journalist and sub-editor for a Nepali publication
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2021-02-26
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. Only the judging criterion was found satisfied.
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.