Business: management advisory and corporate governance in agricultural technology
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding only one evidentiary criterion satisfied and withdrawing SCOPS' favorable finding on the leading or critical role criterion.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A management analyst who advises agricultural technology companies appealed the denial of his extraordinary ability petition. Only the judging criterion survived review. The AAO took away the leading or critical role finding SCOPS had made, explaining that the record gave no context for the startups' funding or customer base and no information about a coalition's reputation. It also agreed that the membership and high remuneration criteria were not met, and it treated four criteria the petitioner never asserted as waived. With fewer than three criteria, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (ii) Membership requiring outstanding achievement | Not met | their disciplines or fields. The Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated this criterion. |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not reached | ability and reserve our analysis of the remaining two criteria as well as a final merits determination in |
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Met | same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. We agree. |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not reached | ability and reserve our analysis of the remaining two criteria as well as a final merits determination in |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not met | reputation of the coalition. We therefore disagree with SCOPS that the Petitioner provided sufficient |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Not met | and consulting remuneration. As a result, he has not demonstrated his data is comparative and that he |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO agreed with SCOPS that the petitioner satisfied the judging criterion.
- The AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding on the leading or critical role criterion because the record did not provide context showing the distinguished reputation of the companies the petitioner advised, including whether the startups' funding was significant for their stage and industry, or of a business coalition.
- The membership evidence did not show that the association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- For the high remuneration criterion, the petitioner described his income as profit participation and consulting fees but offered only salary data for management consulting analysts, so he did not show the data was comparable.
- Because the petitioner could not reach three criteria, the AAO reserved the published material and original contributions criteria and the final merits determination.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary