Business: venture investing and startup finance advisory
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria; it withdrew SCOPS' favorable finding on published material and did not reach the final merits.
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 venture investor and startup financial adviser appealed SCOPS' denial of an extraordinary ability petition. SCOPS had accepted two of six claimed criteria, and on de novo review the AAO kept the judging finding but withdrew the published material finding because the articles only briefly quoted him or gave short advice from him among many contributors. It found memberships, original contributions and scholarly articles not established, noting for instance that the letters did not tie company successes to his own original work. With fewer than three criteria met, the AAO reserved the remaining criterion and any final merits determination and dismissed the appeal.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (ii) Membership requiring outstanding achievement | Not met | For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish he satisfies this criterion. |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not met | Because the evidence does not reflect published material about the Petitioner, we withdraw SCOPS' |
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Met | supports SCOPS' favorable decision for the judging criterion |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not met | For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show he satisfies this criterion. |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Not met | Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish he meets this criterion. |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- SCOPS had found two of six claimed criteria met (published material and judging); the AAO agreed on judging but withdrew the published material finding and found the petitioner met no more than one criterion.
- On memberships, the petitioner did not show that the associations require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts, or who made the selection decisions.
- The articles in which he was briefly quoted or gave short advice were not shown to be published material about him and his work.
- Letters credited him with helping companies raise financing and win partnerships, but the petitioner did not show those results were attributable to his own original contribution or of major significance in the field.
- His business-oriented articles for a general business audience were not shown to be scholarly articles, and the AAO reserved the leading or critical role criterion and the final merits.
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 Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Kinuthia v. Eiden, 702 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Mass. 2023)
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