Regulatory language: "Evidence satisfying criterion iii under the EB-1A regulatory framework." — 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii)
Remanded · 2024 Director found criterion not met; AAO reversed, finding press coverage of petitioner's corporate work in publications such as 21st Century Business Herald, China News Service, and others was sufficient. AAO distinguished Braga v. Poulos, noting that circulation data provided was concrete, not merely self-serving, and that the Director overlooked third-party evidence such as a Wall Street Journal article about one publication.
Remanded · 2024 Director denied this criterion by requiring published material to focus on the petitioner's accomplishments in the wider field, not merely research results. AAO found this was a novel requirement not found in the regulation or USCIS policy manual, and concluded that articles in major tech publications (W- and G-) and NPR satisfied the criterion.
Remanded · 2024 AAO reversed the Director's finding; concluded that English translations were adequate under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and that circulation/readership data from independent third-party sources sufficiently established the publications as major media recognized nationally in Argentina, including outlets operated by a major media conglomerate.
Sustained · 2017 Director found materials were not about the petitioner, were broadcast rather than published, or did not appear in a qualifying publication. AAO found an article in a major Spanish newspaper (815,000 readership, second most popular in Spain) discussed petitioner and his brother at length and was sufficiently 'about' the Petitioner.
Dismissed · 2024 A single paragraph in Indian newspaper Dainik Jagran (2012) was about the petitioner and his work, but the English translation did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) (translator failed to certify completeness or competence), and the author's name was absent. A post-filing article was excluded. AAO partially disagreed with Director on the article's subject matter and the newspaper's status as major medium, but still found the criterion unmet due to translation deficiencies.
Dismissed · 2022 Director found criterion met; AAO withdrew. All six pieces of evidence failed: Billboard article unverifiable, Iberoeconomia lacked author/certified translation, Factores de Poder circulation data illegible, El Universal ad was an announcement not published material, Vive TV lacked viewership comparisons, and YouTube availability does not constitute major media.
Dismissed · 2025 Petitioner submitted interviews and articles but failed to establish that any publication qualified as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media. Sports newspaper not a professional publication; Iranian news agency evidence too dated; government newspaper rankings did not establish major medium based on relative circulation.
Dismissed · 2025 Three online articles failed: one did not mention the petitioner, one lacked an author and was about a company launch with only a passing mention of petitioner, and one discussed a company product without discussing the petitioner's work. No objective evidence submitted that any outlet qualified as a professional or major trade publication or major media.
Director found criterion not met; AAO reversed, finding press coverage of petitioner's corporate work in publications such as 21st Century Business Herald, China News Service, and others was sufficient. AAO distinguished Braga v. Poulos, noting that circulation data provided was concrete, not merely self-serving, and that the Director overlooked third-party evidence such as a Wall Street Journal article about one publication.
Director found criterion met; AAO withdrew. All six pieces of evidence failed: Billboard article unverifiable, Iberoeconomia lacked author/certified translation, Factores de Poder circulation data illegible, El Universal ad was an announcement not published material, Vive TV lacked viewership comparisons, and YouTube availability does not constitute major media.
Director had found this criterion met, but AAO reversed, finding that a single citation in another author's book and articles about the Beneficiary's business school experiences on non-major media websites did not satisfy the regulatory requirement that the Beneficiary be the subject of published material in professional or major trade publications.
Director denied this criterion by requiring published material to focus on the petitioner's accomplishments in the wider field, not merely research results. AAO found this was a novel requirement not found in the regulation or USCIS policy manual, and concluded that articles in major tech publications (W- and G-) and NPR satisfied the criterion.
The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a fund manager back to the Director after finding multiple legal errors in the
A bodybuilding promoter's motions to reopen and reconsider his denied EB-1A petition were both denied because he failed
The AAO dismissed a seventh combined motion to reopen and reconsider an EB-1A petition for an accounting and tax consult
AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a global security expert because the Director improperly dismissed a timely motion
A collaborative pianist's EB-1A appeal was dismissed because he could only demonstrate two of the required three evident
The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a senior staff software engineer back to SCOPS because SCOPS reversed two previ
A competitive judo and jiu-jitsu wrestler from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A classification but fell short, meeting only one o
A table tennis coach's EB-1A petition was dismissed after she failed to meet even three of the required evidentiary crit
See all 1,283 criterion iii cases →