This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, leading role, and high salary), he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination. The AAO also reversed SCOPS' finding on the awards criterion, as the petitioner was not individually named as a recipient of either award.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a Vice President at a financial technology firm working in AI and data science, sought EB-1A classification but was denied by SCOPS and then had his appeal dismissed by the AAO. SCOPS had found four criteria met (awards, judging, leading role, high salary) but denied on final merits; the AAO reversed the awards criterion because neither award named the petitioner individually — both were given to his employer. The AAO upheld findings on judging, leading role, and high salary, meaning three criteria were still met, but conducted its own final merits analysis and found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The key deficiency was the petitioner's failure to show how his work, recognition, salary, and judging experience compared to others at the very top of his field, and that the recognition he received was personal rather than attributable to his company.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established three evidentiary criteria: participation as a judge at academic conferences and industry competitions, performance in a leading or critical role as VP at a fintech company, and receipt of high remuneration.
What failed: The petitioner could not show he was personally named as a recipient of either company-level award, so the awards criterion was reversed on appeal. In the final merits analysis, media coverage did not mention him by name, letters of support only described him as a capable employee rather than a field-wide luminary, his publication record was not compared to top peers, and his salary was not shown to be commensurate with someone at the very top of the field.
Takeaway: When a petitioner's notable achievements are tied to a team or employer rather than attributed to the individual personally, it is critical to obtain documentation — such as certificates, trophies, or official recognition letters — that explicitly names the petitioner as an award recipient. For the final merits stage, petitioners must provide comparative evidence (e.g., how their salary, publication record, or judging experience stacks up against recognized leaders in the field) to show they belong in the top echelon, not just that they are competent professionals.
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
- The petitioner successfully established three evidentiary criteria: participation as a judge at academic conferences and industry competitions, performance in a leading or critical role as VP at a fintech company, and receipt of high remuneration.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner could not show he was personally named as a recipient of either company-level award, so the awards criterion was reversed on appeal
- In the final merits analysis, media coverage did not mention him by name, letters of support only described him as a capable employee rather than a field-wide luminary, his publication record was not compared to top peers, and his salary was not shown to be commensurate with someone at the very top of the field.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Reversed in their favorSCOPS found this criterion met, but AAO reversed because petitioner was not individually named as a recipient of either award; both awards were given to his employer, not to him personally.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles about petitioner's initiatives were discussed in the final merits analysis; criterion met status not explicitly resolved at step one but found insufficient at step two.
Judging the work of others
MetAAO agreed with SCOPS that petitioner met this criterion based on judging three academic conferences, scholarly journals, and an industry competition, but found it insufficient at final merits stage.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metPetitioner claimed original contributions in financial technology AI systems; discussed only in final merits context and found insufficient to establish sustained acclaim.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metPetitioner submitted three papers, one article, and conference speaking evidence; discussed in final merits and found insufficient to show top-of-field standing.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetSCOPS found this criterion met and AAO did not reverse; however found insufficient at final merits to show sustained acclaim.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetSCOPS found high salary criterion met and AAO did not reverse; however found insufficient at final merits because petitioner did not compare his salary to others at the very top of the field.
Completed
I-140 filed
Data scientist and financial technology/AI expert, currently serving as Vice President at a financial technology company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-04
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, leading role, and high salary), he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination. The AAO also reversed SCOPS' finding on the awards criterion, as the petitioner was not individually named as a recipient of either award.
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.