Visalytics
Visalytics
dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued

Entrepreneur

Business And Immigration Investment · 2025-01-15

Decision Date
2025-01-15
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

0 of 3 criteria met
Recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)

The petitioner waived her claim to this criterion on appeal, effectively conceding the Director's finding that it was not met.

Published material about the Petitioner (Not Met)

The submitted articles were found deficient due to not being about the petitioner, being paid advertisements, lacking author/date information, or being published after the petition's filing date, thus failing to meet regulatory requirements.

Original contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The petitioner failed to provide objective evidence to corroborate claims in reference letters, and the contributions, while beneficial to clients, were not demonstrated to have 'major significance' to the overall field of business and immigration investment.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Not Met)

The article in 'Science and Life' was not deemed scholarly as it lacked original research/experimentation, and the publication itself was not considered a professional or major trade publication for the petitioner's field due to its broad, non-specialized content.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for criteria (i), (iii), (v), and (vi). Criterion (i) was waived by the petitioner. For criterion (iii), published material, articles were found not to be about the petitioner, were paid advertisements, lacked required author/date information, or were published after the filing date. For criterion (v), original contributions, reference letters lacked objective corroborating evidence, and contributions were not deemed of 'major significance' to the field, only to individual clients or projects. For criterion (vi), scholarly articles, the submitted article was not considered scholarly (lacking original research/experimentation) and the publication 'Science and Life' was not deemed a professional or major trade publication for the petitioner's field due to its broad subject matter and lack of evidence for circulation data.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested further evidence for the petitioner's original contributions of major significance. In response, the petitioner submitted four additional letters, with three detailing her 'one-stop-shop' business strategy for clients and one providing a personal account of benefits received from her services.

RFE Targets
Original contributions of major significance

Evidence

Evidence Types
Published Material
Reference Letters Dependent
Original Contributions
Scholarly Articles
Evidence Submitted
  • Published material (articles from Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, haiwai.net.cn, NetEase, ifeng.com, sohu.com, qq.com)
  • Reference letters
  • Professional plan
  • Scholarly articles (article in Science and Life)

Similar Cases

Entrepreneur

Consulting

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-08-23
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner only met two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) and scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). The AAO, upon de novo review, concluded that the Petitioner also met the criterion for published material about them in major media (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), overturning the Director's finding on this point. Specifically, the AAO found that press coverage of the Petitioner's corporate work, including articles from China Youth Daily, China News Service, 21st Century Business Herald, China Enterprise News, Xinmin Weekly, The Morning Express, Southern Metropolis Daily, Nan Fang Daily Press, and Technology Entrepreneurship, along with supporting documentation, was sufficient to establish this criterion. Therefore, with three criteria met, the case was remanded for a final merits determination.

Lawyer

Legal Services

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-02-05
The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, publications about her in major media (due to lack of certified translations and independent evidence), original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, or high remuneration for services (due to insufficient corroborating evidence). The Petitioner also abandoned claims for display of work and commercial successes.

Entrepreneur

Others

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-01-02
The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the AAO's prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and no new facts relevant to the summary dismissal were presented. The original appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner's brief did not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). The Petitioner did not contest these stated reasons for summary dismissal.

Entrepreneur

Food and Beverage

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Colorado 2024-08-16
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria. Specifically, USCIS found that the claimed awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, the published materials were not in major media, and the claimed judging experience was merely mentorship or on-the-job training, not actual judging of others' work. No specific metrics like publication or citation counts were provided or met.

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

More dismissed cases More Financial Services cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2025-01-15.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 0 / 3
Evidence Types 4

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 883
Success Rate 52.8%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 300

Related Pages

EB-1A Overview All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist