Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial after finding the petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria (including published material, judging, and high salary) and remanded for a final merits determination. The AAO also found a procedural due process error because SCOPS relied on derogatory information from outside the record without disclosing it to the petitioner.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a business development executive and entrepreneur in the Russian fitness and wellness industry, appealed SCOPS' denial of his EB-1A petition. SCOPS found only two of the required three evidentiary criteria met. The AAO reversed on the published material criterion, finding that online Russian news articles supported by third-party readership data qualified as major media, bringing the total to three satisfied criteria. Separately, the AAO found a significant procedural error: SCOPS had relied on derogatory information from the petitioner's nonimmigrant visa applications without disclosing this to the petitioner or giving him a chance to respond, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16). The case was remanded for SCOPS to conduct a final merits determination and to address the procedural due process issue.
What worked: Evidence of online articles about the petitioner from Russian news outlets, supported by multiple third-party sources showing readership and publication rankings, was sufficient to establish the published material criterion. Evidence of judging business competitions and high compensation had already been accepted by SCOPS.
What failed: SCOPS' blanket skepticism of internet-based media and third-party ranking data was rejected by the AAO as unsupported. The criterion for leading or critical role (criterion viii) was not resolved due to the due process violation involving undisclosed outside information.
Takeaway: When submitting published material evidence from online outlets, include multiple corroborating third-party sources (traffic data, rankings, audience metrics) to establish major media status. Petitioners should also be aware that USCIS cannot use derogatory outside-record information in adjudication without first disclosing it and providing an opportunity to respond.
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
- Evidence of online articles about the petitioner from Russian news outlets, supported by multiple third-party sources showing readership and publication rankings, was sufficient to establish the published material criterion
- Evidence of judging business competitions and high compensation had already been accepted by SCOPS.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- SCOPS' blanket skepticism of internet-based media and third-party ranking data was rejected by the AAO as unsupported
- The criterion for leading or critical role (criterion viii) was not resolved due to the due process violation involving undisclosed outside information.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed SCOPS' denial; found online articles from Russian outlets, including one with title, date, and author, qualify as major media supported by third-party readership and ranking data.
Judging the work of others
MetSCOPS had already granted this criterion based on participation as a judge in business competitions.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metPetitioner claimed this criterion but the decision did not explicitly rule on it; AAO noted it need not consider additional criteria beyond the three already granted.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metSCOPS denied this criterion partly using derogatory outside-record information from nonimmigrant visa applications without disclosing it to petitioner; AAO flagged the due process violation but did not rule on the merits of this criterion.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetSCOPS had already granted this criterion based on evidence of high remuneration relative to others in the field.
Completed
I-140 filed
Business development executive and entrepreneur in the fitness and wellness industry
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 — Remanded
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial after finding the petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria (including published material, judging, and high salary) and remanded for a final merits determination. The AAO also found a procedural due process error because SCOPS relied on derogatory information from outside the record without disclosing it to the petitioner.
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.