dismissed EB-1A
Model
Model · Nepal · 2024-06-26
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
2 of 3 criteria metJudging the work of others (Met)
The Director determined the Petitioner fulfilled the criterion for judging the work of others.
Display of work (Met)
The Director determined the Petitioner fulfilled the criterion for the display of his work.
Published material (Not Met)
Articles submitted either only briefly mentioned the petitioner, lacked identified authors, or were not proven to be from major media.
High salary (Not Met)
The petitioner failed to provide tax records to corroborate income and used 2023 salary benchmarks to compare against 2013-2020 earnings.
Commercial success (Not Met)
The Petitioner did not challenge the Director's determination on this criterion on appeal, and it was considered abandoned.
Why This Petition Was Denied
The Petitioner met only 2 of the 10 criteria (judging and display), failing to meet the minimum requirement of 3. Specifically, published materials in The Himalayan Times and World of Women were not shown to be major media or primarily about the Petitioner's work. Evidence for high remuneration was insufficient due to a lack of tax records and the use of non-synchronous salary comparison data (2023 data compared to 2013-2020 earnings).
Evidence
Evidence Types
Judging Experience
Exhibitions
Published Material
High Salary
Commercial Success
Evidence Submitted
- Judging the work of others
- Display of work
- Article in The Himalayan Times (2015)
- Articles in World of Women (2015, 2016)
- Compensation letters and contracts (2013-2020)
Similar Cases
Project Manager
Engineering · Jordan
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-07-10
The Petitioner failed to meet any of the evaluated EB-1A criteria. The awards were internal employer recognitions, memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and there was no evidence of published material about the Petitioner or proof that his original contributions were of major significance in the field.
Unknown Position
Unknown Industry
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2025-01-30
The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the AAO found its reliance on Krasniqi v. Dibbins for merit-based awards was correct, the petitioner's awards were for participation, not excellence. The petitioner also failed to show error in the analysis of the leading or critical role criterion, or the high salary criterion, as no comparative evidence was provided to show the salary was high in relation to others in the field.
Entrepreneur
Information Technology
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-12-26
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's analysis was insufficient. The decision did not adequately explain the reasons for concluding that the Petitioner failed to satisfy five claimed criteria (lesser awards, published materials, original contributions, leading or critical role, and high salary), nor did it discuss the evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The Director's analysis regarding the Petitioner's intent to continue working was also found to be copied verbatim from the RFE, indicating a lack of proper evaluation of the submitted evidence.
Unknown Position
Others
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-09-04
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director incorrectly concluded that the Petitioner did not articulate what evidence was being submitted for consideration under at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the Petitioner's RFE response brief clearly articulated evidence for the first, fifth, and ninth criteria, thus necessitating a new decision by the Director.
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: 2024-06-26.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome dismissed
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 5
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist