EB-1A Criterion i of 10 1,207 cases

Lesser nationally recognized prizes —
what the AAO actually requires

Regulatory language: "Evidence satisfying criterion i under the EB-1A regulatory framework." — 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(i)
Cases indexed
1,207
where this criterion was addressed
Met rate
22%
found met in 263 of 1,207 addressed cases
Most common error
Dismissed
without assessing selectivity
Trend
+5pp
win rate up vs. 2024
Evidence patterns — what moves the needle
Not enough alone

Dismissed · 2023 Petitioner received an award from a Russian Federation governmental entity in 2017, but failed to show the award was nationally or internationally recognized beyond the issuing agency. No public reporting or broad field awareness was demonstrated. Director's conclusion appeared to be a typographical error stating criterion was met despite negative analysis; AAO made its own assessment and found it not met.

Dismissed · 2025 SCOPS found this criterion met, but AAO reversed, finding none of the submitted awards were shown to be nationally or internationally recognized. The Beauty Minas Prize lacked objective supporting documentation, a second certificate was illegible and only showed participation, a conference trophy was not linked to a prize, and a company marketing award did not reflect recognition in the esthetics field.

Dismissed · 2020 Director had found this criterion met based on newspaper articles about team competition wins, but AAO reversed: articles were insufficient documentation, the event's international recognition was not established, and the petitioner conflated unrelated competitions (a local annual event with a quadrennial multi-sport games), raising credibility concerns. Recognition certificates were also insufficient.

Dismissed · 2015 Director had found one award (Telly Award) sufficient to meet criterion; AAO reversed, finding no award met the national/international recognition standard — Telly Award lacked independent corroboration, employer achievement award was not individually awarded to petitioner, and Supplier of the Year award went to an organization not the petitioner. AAO also noted plural 'awards' requires more than one.

Officer error patterns — how cases get remanded
AAO reversed the Director on this criterion2025

SCOPS found this criterion met, but AAO reversed, finding none of the submitted awards were shown to be nationally or internationally recognized. The Beauty Minas Prize lacked objective supporting documentation, a second certificate was illegible and only showed participation, a conference trophy was not linked to a prize, and a company marketing award did not reflect recognition in the esthetics field.

AAO reversed the Director on this criterion2020

Director had found this criterion met based on newspaper articles about team competition wins, but AAO reversed: articles were insufficient documentation, the event's international recognition was not established, and the petitioner conflated unrelated competitions (a local annual event with a quadrennial multi-sport games), raising credibility concerns. Recognition certificates were also insufficient.

AAO reversed the Director on this criterion2015

Director had found one award (Telly Award) sufficient to meet criterion; AAO reversed, finding no award met the national/international recognition standard — Telly Award lacked independent corroboration, employer achievement award was not individually awarded to petitioner, and Supplier of the Year award went to an organization not the petitioner. AAO also noted plural 'awards' requires more than one.

AAO reversed the Director on this criterion2020

AAO reversed the Director and found the petitioner's first place finish in the 2016 ocean rowing race met this criterion based on official race results, letters from USRowing and The Rowing Society, and international media coverage including Outside magazine, CNBC, and Huffington Post. Brazilian national medals were insufficient due to inconsistencies and lack of official results.

Cases on this criterion
Remanded2022 · MAR112022_01B2203

The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a fund manager back to the Director after finding multiple…

The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a fund manager back to the Director after finding multiple legal errors in the

Dismissed2017 · AUG112017_02B2203

A bodybuilding promoter's motions to reopen and reconsider his denied EB-1A petition were both deni…

A bodybuilding promoter's motions to reopen and reconsider his denied EB-1A petition were both denied because he failed

Dismissed2026 · JAN232026_04B2203

The AAO dismissed a seventh combined motion to reopen and reconsider an EB-1A petition for an accou…

The AAO dismissed a seventh combined motion to reopen and reconsider an EB-1A petition for an accounting and tax consult

Remanded2024 · JAN232024_01B2203

AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a global security expert because the Director improperly dismi…

AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a global security expert because the Director improperly dismissed a timely motion

Dismissed2021 · APR162021_02B2203

A collaborative pianist's EB-1A appeal was dismissed because he could only demonstrate two of the r…

A collaborative pianist's EB-1A appeal was dismissed because he could only demonstrate two of the required three evident

Remanded2026 · JAN052026_01B2203

The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a senior staff software engineer back to SCOPS because SCO…

The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a senior staff software engineer back to SCOPS because SCOPS reversed two previ

Dismissed2018 · JAN242018_03B2203

A competitive judo and jiu-jitsu wrestler from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A classification but fell shor…

A competitive judo and jiu-jitsu wrestler from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A classification but fell short, meeting only one o

Dismissed2015 · FEB272015_01B2203

A table tennis coach's EB-1A petition was dismissed after she failed to meet even three of the requ…

A table tennis coach's EB-1A petition was dismissed after she failed to meet even three of the required evidentiary crit

See all 1,207 criterion i cases →