Officers most often push back on judging, original-contribution, and leading-role evidence — and on the final merits step even after criteria are met.
Dismissed · 2022 Two articles about the petitioner: a March 2019 Daily Leader article about his background and cleaning services business, and a February 2018 Chamber Connection interview about his personal philosophy and membership benefits — accepted as being 'about' the petitioner but insufficient to establish major media status
Dismissed · 2017 May 2017 letter from assistant principal of German school confirming petitioner received a prize at the 1981 competition in Netherlands with a monetary award equivalent to $2,500 USD — sufficient to demonstrate receipt of the award, though not its national/international recognition
Remanded · 2026 Detailed letters from independent expert researchers (including a U.S. university professor of chemistry and biochemistry and a Belgian university professor of chemical biology) specifically explaining the significance of the petitioner's polymer-based nanodisc research
Dismissed · 2025 1993 monograph titled 'Mathematical models of control system functioning/Gas production and transportation' accepted as a professional publication because its intended audience of engineers satisfies the statutory definition of 'profession' under INA § 101(a)(32)
Remanded · 2024 Bronze medal in the adult blackbelt category at the 2017 national championship, supported by sports media articles describing it as one of the biggest events of the most well-established jiu-jitsu federation gathering top American black belts.
Dismissed · 2022 Company-level awards (Asia Pacific Leadership in Green Building Awards 2018, Platinum Certification from Indian Green Building Council, 2018 Architectural Design Award, International Architecture Awards 2015, Certificate of Honorable Mention from Re-Thinking the Future Sustainability Awards, Jury Commendation from Design and Architecture Award) — all received by the company or project, not the petitioner personally
Dismissed · 2020 Letters from five associates (spouse of Japan's prime minister, former CEO of a portfolio company, a startup founder/CEO, a VP of a U.S. investment firm, and a government office chief representative) — found to reflect personal praise from close collaborators rather than independent evidence of field-wide impact
Dismissed · 2025 Letter from head of department of labor statistics providing average salary data for 'Heads of services and departments in the field of financial activity and insurance' — rejected because it did not cover petitioner's actual occupation and provided only average (not top-tier comparative) salary data.
Dismissed · 2025 Computer printout of a Kazakhstani presidential 'gold quality' diploma awarded to petitioner's wholesale tea company — rejected because award was issued to the company, not the petitioner personally, and no evidence showed the petitioner was named in award announcements or appeared on a podium
Dismissed · 2024 Membership documentation for Boy Scouts of America, Nepal Mountaineering Association, Nepal National Mountain Guide Association, Leo Club, and US Nepal Climbers Association — no bylaws or official criteria showing membership requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
Director imposed a novel substantive requirement for the published material criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) by requiring that material focus on the petitioner's accomplishments in the wider field, rather than simply being about the person relating to their work, which is not supported by the plain language of the regulation or USCIS policy.
Petitioner argued director improperly discounted expert letters that used the word 'young' to describe petitioner; AAO partially agreed that three letters did not use the term to qualify his accomplishments, but found one letter explicitly compared him only to other young scientists, which does not demonstrate field-wide impact.
The Director erroneously found the published material criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) satisfied; the AAO reversed this finding because the Globee article lacked required date and author, and the NewsBreak.com article was likely promotional content on an open-source platform without demonstrated major media status.
The Director erroneously found the petitioner met the leading or critical role criterion (viii); the AAO withdrew this finding because the petitioner's roles were supporting roles, her film role was not shown to be for an organization with a distinguished reputation, and her music video appearance was as an extra.
The petitioner argued the Director improperly compared citation counts to leading scientists as part of the initial evidentiary threshold analysis rather than reserving that comparison for the final merits step; AAO agreed the comparison was misplaced but found citations still insufficient to meet 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
See all 2,179 EB-1A cases →