Business: executive management in a technology-driven industry
The AAO dismissed the appeal because, with only one criterion met, the Petitioner could not reach three; the scholarly articles and original contributions criteria were not satisfied.
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 company chief executive who had moved into his current industry after a long career in a different technology area sought EB-1A classification, and the Texas Service Center Director denied the petition. The AAO reasoned that his acclaim had to come from the field he planned to continue in the United States, and so set aside earlier achievements elsewhere. Within that field it found his contributions not shown to be both original and of major significance, and his old articles unrelated. Having only the published material criterion, he fell short of three, and the appeal was dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (iii) Published material about the person | Met | although the Petitioner satisfies the published material criterion |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not met | The evidence the Petitioner presented is not adequate to show his contributions |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Not met | the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion's requirements relying on evidence from a different field |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO held that the Petitioner must meet the criteria through accomplishments in the field he intends to continue in the United States, and it did not count work from his earlier career in other technology areas.
- On original contributions, the AAO found that his work was original as to his home country but that he did not address similar devices and methods already existing elsewhere, and scholarly work by others that predated his efforts called the broader originality into question.
- His two published articles were in fields unrelated to the one he intends to work in, and he did not establish a nexus to that field.
- The Director had accepted only the published material criterion, and the AAO agreed with that outcome; since three criteria could not be reached, it did not decide the leading or critical role criterion.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022)
- Mussarova v. Garland, 562 F. Supp. 3d 837, 843-44 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
- Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
- Integrity Gymnastics & Pure Power Cheerleading, LLC v. USCIS, 131 F. Supp. 3d 721, 729-31 (S.D. Ohio 2015)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 415 (2019)
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976)
- Matter of Larios-Gutierrez De Pablo & Pablo-Larios, 28 I&N Dec. 868, 877 n.8 (BIA 2024)
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