Case ReviewerAAO decisions, in plain English Back to EB-1A cases

Home EB-1A MAY072026_02B2203

MAY072026_02B2203Decided 2026-05-07I-140

An EB-1A petition by a mortgage broker was dismissed after the AAO found she met only 2 of the required 3 evidentiary…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-1AField: Mortgage Industry Innovator and Financial StrategistOrigin: Ukraine
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only 2 of the required 3 evidentiary criteria. Even conducting a final merits determination, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

2 / 3 criteria needed Need 1 more

1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.

In plain English

A mortgage broker/financial strategist from Ukraine self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS initially denied the petition after finding 5 criteria met but concluding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim. On de novo appeal, the AAO reduced the criteria count to only 2 (judging and scholarly articles), reversing SCOPS' favorable findings on awards, published material, and high salary. The AAO also conducted a final merits determination and found that the petitioner's recent and limited accomplishments — a handful of industry awards, approximately 10 website articles, a modest publication record, and a newly established brokerage — did not rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim consistent with being among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The appeal was dismissed on both independent grounds.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The petitioner satisfied the judging criterion based on documented participation as a reviewer of others' work. She also satisfied the scholarly articles criterion through authorship of articles in professional journals.

What failed: Awards failed because they were given to many recipients, involved self-nomination, and lacked independent national/international recognition in the mortgage field. Published material failed because the petitioner did not establish that any of the cited websites qualify as professional, major trade, or major media publications. High salary failed because the comparison group was not limited to other mortgage broker company owners. In the final merits, all evidence was deemed too recent, too limited in scope, and insufficiently reflective of a career of acclaimed work or top-of-field recognition.

Takeaway: Petitioners in business fields must ensure awards are verifiable, merit-based, limited in number of recipients, and independently recognized across the broader industry — self-nomination and internal trade association recognition are rarely sufficient. Salary comparisons must use truly comparable occupational peers, and evidence of acclaim must span a substantial career period rather than being concentrated in the year before filing.

For RFE responses & petition building

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 satisfied the judging criterion based on documented participation as a reviewer of others' work
  • She also satisfied the scholarly articles criterion through authorship of articles in professional journals.

● Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • Awards failed because they were given to many recipients, involved self-nomination, and lacked independent national/international recognition in the mortgage field
  • Published material failed because the petitioner did not establish that any of the cited websites qualify as professional, major trade, or major media publications
  • High salary failed because the comparison group was not limited to other mortgage broker company owners
  • In the final merits, all evidence was deemed too recent, too limited in scope, and insufficiently reflective of a career of acclaimed work or top-of-field recognition.
Find more EB-1A cases with similar evidence patterns →
What the evidence showed

Criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards

Reversed in their favor

SCOPS found this met; AAO withdrew that finding. Awards from NAMB, an Assembly of Business Circles, and a mortgage professional publication all failed — self-nomination, lack of national/international recognition, inconsistencies about whether one vs. many received the awards, and insufficient media coverage.

Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement

Not met

NAMB membership is open to any licensed mortgage professional and does not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts; company membership rather than personal membership for the other organization.

Published material about the person

Reversed in their favor

SCOPS found this met; AAO withdrew that finding. Petitioner failed to show that websites (realtytoday.com, ceoweekly.com, etc.) qualify as professional, major trade, or major media publications; SimilarWeb analytics were not contextualized.

Judging the work of others

Met

Both SCOPS and AAO agreed the petitioner met the plain language of this criterion based on her participation as a judge.

Original contributions of major significance

Not met

Fraud-detection software adoption limited to two businesses; loan restructuring not shown to have field-wide impact; claimed 100+ institutional partnerships supported by only 6 agreements; peer review work is routine, not a major contribution.

Authorship of scholarly articles

Met

Both SCOPS and AAO agreed the petitioner met this criterion based on authorship of scholarly articles.

Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations

Not met

Leading/critical role established only for petitioner's own company, which lacks a distinguished reputation; roles at other organizations not adequately documented; letters too vague.

High salary or other significantly high remuneration

Reversed in their favor

SCOPS found this met; AAO withdrew. Petitioner compared her income to loan officers, chief executives, etc. rather than to other mortgage broker company owners — not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Commercial successes in the performing arts

Not met

Comparable evidence argument failed; $332,531 revenue and projected (not realized) $19M contract value not shown to constitute 'commercial success' relative to the field.

How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Mortgage broker and financial strategist; owner and CEO of a mortgage brokerage company

Completed

SCOPS — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2026-05-07

AAO decision — Dismissed

The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only 2 of the required 3 evidentiary criteria. Even conducting a final merits determination, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

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.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawathePetitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Christa'sAAO reviews questions de novo.
KazarianEstablishes the two-step extraordinary ability analysis: first count criteria, then conduct a final merits determination.
OnaghiseExtraordinary ability visas are reserved for only the most talented aliens.
VisinscaiaSupports the two-step Kazarian analysis; also used for requiring specific evidence of impact and detail regarding roles.
RijalSupports the two-step Kazarian analysis.
S-M-Statements in a brief or motion are not evidence and carry no evidentiary weight.
HoInconsistencies in the record must be resolved with independent, objective evidence.
PriceHigh salary must be compared to similarly situated professionals; extraordinary ability requires those already at top, not major-league-level alone.
KrasniqiAwards must be merit-based; internet-accessible outlets do not automatically qualify as major media.
SunPetitioner must show the award demands wider industry notice; plaintiff must provide specific evidence of major field impact.
Negro-PlumpeAwards mentioned in a major German newspaper were insufficient to establish national or international recognition.
DenisovA certificate shared by 104 recipients diminishes its prestige; petitioner must compare to others doing similar work; EB-1 is very exacting and narrow.
NelsonMembership based on professional qualifications without specifying outstanding achievement does not meet the membership criterion.
AravamuthanOutstanding achievements must be required as a minimum condition for membership; letters that do not discuss organizational hierarchy are insufficient.
KumarMembership documentation must reflect recognized national/international experts determine qualifications; publications must be shown to qualify as professional/major trade/major media; letters must provide specific information about duties.
TapiaOrganizations must require outstanding achievements of members as judged by experts; comparable salary evidence must relate to the specific occupation.
HristovNo evidence beyond the four corners of articles that the source was a major publication is insufficient.
BranskiFailure to provide context to circulation figures makes it difficult to assess significance; successful businesses need more than satisfied customers to show a distinguished reputation.
AgrawalLetters must specifically describe how contributions have been implemented throughout the field; contributions must be objectively demonstrated as majorly significant; testimonial letters are of limited value unless they specifically address leading or critical role; plaintiff must show judging surpasses the majority of the field.
AminEvidence must demonstrate work has been widely adopted by unaffiliated industry actors; extraordinary ability is an elite level of accomplishment.
KarimPetitioner must demonstrate contributions of major significance already made, not future ones.
XiaSalary comparison must be apples-to-apples, not apples-to-oranges.
HamalAwards and memberships must be contextualized throughout a career to show sustained acclaim; press coverage must be indicative of success at the top of the field; judging experience needs context.
BodhankarAwards by a national organization do not necessarily establish national/international acclaim; organizations with high membership numbers are inconsistent with being limited to those at the very top; minimal publications insufficient; high salary not so high as to indicate top of field.
DonskoyWhat matters is whether an award brought the petitioner individual acclaim; membership must establish exceptional level of distinction; petitioner must show sustained national/international acclaim for contributions.
JafarovRecency of judging events does not show a career of acclaimed work; limited publication record and failure to show consistent high wages do not reflect sustained national/international acclaim.
JosephProspective success is not comparable to actual commercial success; judging must set petitioner apart from others; leading role in a successful company does not necessarily demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field; EB-1 is the most difficult employment visa to obtain.
GangasaniLetters limited to a project rather than the company do not establish a leading or critical role.
BhanuPetitioner must show consistent history of substantial review requests relative to others, or service in editorial positions at distinguished journals; authorships must show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.
NagaiahAuthorship of scholarly articles does not automatically place the petitioner at the top of the field; earnings must be so high as to indicate top of field and reflective of sustained acclaim.
ChurywnovSuccess of one business does not equate to national or international acclaim.
ChivukulaExtraordinary ability requires a stringent standard.
LaptevaEB-1 visas are intended for only an exceedingly small number of individuals; conclusory statements without illustrative evidence of organizations worked for are insufficient.