This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required ten evidentiary criteria. He satisfied only one criterion (high salary) out of the four he claimed, falling short of the required minimum of three.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a Uzbekistan-based banking and fintech executive, sought EB-1A classification by claiming four evidentiary criteria. SCOPS denied the petition finding only the high salary criterion met, and the AAO affirmed on appeal. Three online articles failed the published material criterion because they lacked required author information, did not discuss the petitioner's work, or were promotional materials. Three support letters for the original contributions criterion were found conclusory and lacking specifics on broader industry impact, with one letter's foundership claim contradicted by public records. Because the petitioner met only one of the required three criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination.
What worked: High salary criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) was found met by SCOPS based on remuneration evidence and was not disturbed by the AAO.
What failed: Published material criterion failed because submitted articles lacked required author information, did not discuss the petitioner or his work, and no objective evidence showed the outlets qualified as major media. Original contributions criterion failed because support letters were conclusory, lacked specific details on broader industry impact, and no corroborating objective evidence was provided; one letter's claim that petitioner founded a company was contradicted by publicly available information.
Takeaway: For the published material criterion, petitioners must submit articles that specifically discuss them and their work, include author attribution, and provide objective circulation/readership data proving the outlet qualifies as major media. For original contributions, support letters must go beyond praise and provide concrete, verifiable details about how the petitioner's specific work influenced the broader field — and all factual claims in letters should be corroborated by independent documentary evidence.
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
- High salary criterion (8 C.F.R
- § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) was found met by SCOPS based on remuneration evidence and was not disturbed by the AAO.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Published material criterion failed because submitted articles lacked required author information, did not discuss the petitioner or his work, and no objective evidence showed the outlets qualified as major media
- Original contributions criterion failed because support letters were conclusory, lacked specific details on broader industry impact, and no corroborating objective evidence was provided
- one letter's claim that petitioner founded a company was contradicted by publicly available information.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Published material about the person
Not metThree online articles failed: one did not mention the petitioner, one lacked an author and was about a company launch with only a passing mention of petitioner, and one discussed a company product without discussing the petitioner's work. No objective evidence submitted that any outlet qualified as a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metSupport letters were conclusory and lacked specific detail about the petitioner's individual contributions and their broader industry impact. One letter's claim that petitioner founded a company contradicted publicly available sources. No objective corroborating evidence of major significance beyond employer and clients in Uzbekistan.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetSCOPS found this criterion met; petitioner erroneously argued on appeal that SCOPS denied it. AAO did not disturb this finding.
Evidence of high salary or significantly high remuneration (criterion IX) — found sufficient by SCOPS and undisturbed by AAO
2017 online article: did not list an author, did not mention the petitioner or his work
2018 online article (company launch): lacked an author, only briefly mentioned petitioner in passing, characterized as promotional/marketing material
2018 online article (fraud-detecting payment system): listed an author and included petitioner's photo but discussed company product, not petitioner's individual work
2024 online articles submitted in response to RFE: filed after petition date, given no evidentiary weight
Support letter from Z-Z-: conclusory praise without specific detail on how petitioner's contributions impacted the field
Support letter from T-K-A-: lacked specifics on industry impact beyond company and clients; claim that petitioner founded the company contradicted by publicly available sources
Support letter from E-T-U-: praised petitioner as a former employee but lacked detail on broader banking industry impact
Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions that article outlets were 'reputable' and 'widely read' — statements of counsel are not evidence
No legal errors found by the AAO in the lower decision; AAO affirmed SCOPS findings on criteria III and V and noted petitioner incorrectly asserted SCOPS denied criterion IX (high salary) when SCOPS had actually found it met.
Completed
I-140 filed
Banking and finance executive; former bank branch general manager and director of fintech companies developing electronic payment systems in Uzbekistan
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-07-10
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required ten evidentiary criteria. He satisfied only one criterion (high salary) out of the four he claimed, falling short of the required minimum of three.
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