dismissed EB-1A
Business Executive
Financial Technology Industry · China · 2024-10-17
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
1 of 3 criteria metEvidence of participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of endeavor for which classification is sought. (Met)
The Director found, and the AAO affirmed, that the Petitioner submitted evidence of his participation as a judge of others' work in his field.
Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. (Not Met)
The Petitioner's article in China Banking and Insurance News was not considered scholarly due to a lack of research, detail, peer review, or citations, despite the publication being identified as a professional or major trade publication.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. (Not Met)
The Petitioner's claim of high salary was not established due to inconsistencies in tax records and a lack of evidence showing that salary guides included stock compensation, which was a significant part of his claimed income.
Why This Petition Was Denied
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of two additional evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. Specifically, the article submitted to China Banking and Insurance News was deemed not scholarly due to lack of research detail, peer review, or citations. For the high salary criterion, inconsistencies in tax records (5,567,813.42 RMB / $782,060 in 2021 and 7,787,602.62 RMB / $1,093,854 in 2022 vs. online records and employer letter) and lack of clarity on whether salary guides included stock compensation led to the finding that high remuneration was not established. The Petitioner only met one criterion (judging), falling short of the three required.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
- participation as a judge of others' work
- authorship of an article in China Banking and Insurance News (not deemed scholarly)
- Chinese income tax records for 2021 and 2022 (showing 5,567,813.42 RMB and 7,787,602.62 RMB respectively)
- 2021 salary guides for China
- letter from employer stating annual salary of 2,100,000 RMB
Similar Cases
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Others · China
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-07-18
The Petitioner met three criteria: leading or critical role, published material in major media, and high salary. The high salary criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) was satisfied after the AAO determined that salary discrepancies were due to translation errors in tax documents. The Director's original decision was withdrawn because it lacked a final merits determination.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Fintech · Ukraine
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-09-24
The AAO found the Director erred in evaluating the membership and published material criteria. The Beneficiary's membership in the Forbes Finance Council was deemed to require outstanding achievements, despite a fee, and several online articles were found to be sufficient published material about the Beneficiary. However, the award received was not established as nationally or internationally recognized, original contributions lacked corroborating evidence of major significance, and articles authored by the Beneficiary were deemed informational rather than scholarly.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Fintech
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2025-01-03
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter. The AAO found that the Director erred in disallowing comparable evidence for the 'authorship of scholarly articles' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). The AAO determined that the Beneficiary's presentations at multiple major trade shows constituted comparable evidence, thereby satisfying this criterion. With this additional criterion met, the Petitioner now satisfies at least three of the ten criteria, allowing the case to proceed to a final merits determination, which the Director had not performed.
Data Scientist
Information Technology
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-08-20
The appeal was dismissed because, despite the Petitioner satisfying three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role), the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The activities cited, such as judging, authoring articles, and holding a leading role, were primarily limited to a short period (2021-2023, mostly 2023) immediately preceding the petition filing in 2023, failing to show a 'career of acclaimed work.' Additionally, memberships in BCS and IEEE were not deemed to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the high salary claim lacked comparison to top-level peers with similar experience and responsibilities.
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
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-17.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome dismissed
Criteria Met 1 / 3
Evidence Types 3
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist