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 regulatory criteria for EB-1A. The AAO also reversed SCOPS' finding that the judging criterion was met, leaving the petitioner with zero confirmed criteria.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a project manager and managing director in aviation technology, sought EB-1A classification but failed to demonstrate even three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. SCOPS had found two criteria met (judging and salary), but on appeal the AAO reversed the judging finding because the petitioner judged students at a pitch competition rather than professionals in his field. The contributions criterion was not met because reference letters only confirmed the company delivered services and equipment without identifying any specific original contribution of major significance by the petitioner personally. The leading-or-critical-role criterion was not met because the petitioner provided only non-disclosure agreements with a job title but no evidence of actual duties, impact, or the company's distinguished reputation. Because the petitioner could not clear the three-criteria threshold, the AAO did not conduct a final merits determination.
What failed: 1. Judging student pitch competition participants failed because students are not professionals 'in the field' — the criterion requires judging peers, not learners. 2. Reference letters about the contributions criterion only confirmed sales/supply of services and equipment by the petitioner's company and did not identify any specific original contribution by the petitioner or explain major significance. 3. A job title of 'Managing Director' on non-disclosure agreements was insufficient for the leading/critical role criterion without detailed evidence of duties, impact, and the organization's distinguished reputation.
Takeaway: For the judging criterion, ensure the petitioner evaluated the work of established professionals in the field, not students. For contributions and leading-role criteria, submit detailed, corroborated evidence that specifically attributes significant achievements or organizational impact to the petitioner personally, not merely to their employer or company.
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
- Judging student pitch competition participants failed because students are not professionals 'in the field' — the criterion requires judging peers, not learners
- Reference letters about the contributions criterion only confirmed sales/supply of services and equipment by the petitioner's company and did not identify any specific original contribution by the petitioner or explain major significance
- A job title of 'Managing Director' on non-disclosure agreements was insufficient for the leading/critical role criterion without detailed evidence of duties, impact, and the organization's distinguished reputation.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed SCOPS' favorable finding; judging student pitch competition participants does not satisfy the criterion because students are not professionals 'in the field.'
Original contributions of major significance
Not met12 reference letters confirmed company supplied services/equipment but did not identify specific original contributions by the petitioner or explain major significance; articles were insufficiently probative.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metNon-disclosure agreements showing 'Managing Director' title were insufficient without specific duties, corroborating evidence, or proof of the company's distinguished reputation.
12 reference letters confirming the petitioner's company supplied services/equipment, but not identifying any specific original contribution by the petitioner
Articles mentioning the petitioner that did not detail his contributions or their field impact (some were illegible)
Letter from The Entrepreneurs' Center confirming judging at a student pitch competition — insufficient because students are not professionals in the field
Three non-disclosure agreements showing 'Managing Director' title without details of duties, impact on company, or evidence of the company's distinguished reputation
SCOPS erroneously found the judging criterion met; students in a pitch competition are not professionals 'in the field' as the regulation requires.
Completed
I-140 filed
Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology; managing director of an aviation services company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required ten regulatory criteria for EB-1A. The AAO also reversed SCOPS' finding that the judging criterion was met, leaving the petitioner with zero confirmed criteria.
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