EB-1A Failure — Only Two Criteria Met – Why the Three‑Criterion Rule Matters

The case cleanly illustrates a common pitfall across many EB‑1A petitions: submitting evidence for only two of the ten possible criteria. The AAO dismissed this petition because it satisfied neither awards nor high salary, and failed to satisfy original contributions despite strong submissions on judging and scholarly articles.

What Happened in This Case

The petitioner submitted:

• Judging criterion: Evidence of participation as a judge

• Scholarly articles criterion: Co‑authorship of a peer‑reviewed article published in a professional publication

These two pieces of evidence were sufficient to satisfy the judging and scholarly articles criteria. However, the petition failed on three other grounds:

Criterion Status ----------- -------- Awards Not satisfied — no documentation provided for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards High salary Not satisfied — petitioner’s salary was below top 10% for her field Original contributions Not satisfied — reference letters and statements failed to demonstrate major significance

The AAO found that the petitioner had not submitted evidence satisfying at least three of the ten EB‑1A criteria, which is a mandatory threshold.

Why Only Two Criteria Are Insufficient

This case illustrates a fundamental rule: the three-criterion requirement is non-negotiable. The AAO consistently applies this standard regardless of how strong the evidence might be for any individual criterion.

Even when:

• Evidence meets one or two criteria with reasonable strength

• Other submitted evidence appears credible on its face

The petition fails if fewer than three criteria are satisfied in total. This is not a discretionary rule — it's an evidentiary threshold that must be met before the AAO will proceed to evaluate merits.

The Three‑Criterion Rule Explained

The EB‑1A statute requires "extraordinary ability" through sustained national or international acclaim. To demonstrate this, petitioners must satisfy at least three of ten possible criteria:

Criterion Description ----------- ------------- Awards Lesser nationally/internationally recognized award OR major internationally recognized award High salary Salary in the top 10% for occupation/area Judging Serving on panels judging work of others Original contributions Contributions with major significance Scholarly articles Peer‑reviewed publication in professional publications

The rule is simple and binding: three criteria minimum. No exceptions, no waivers.

Common Mistake Pattern: Only Two Criteria Met

This case represents a frequent error pattern among petitioners:

• Selecting only two or three of the ten possible criteria

• Submitting strong but incomplete evidence for those chosen

• Failing to address other potentially relevant grounds

• Not recognizing that meeting fewer than three is fatal, regardless of quality

Petitioners often misunderstand that:

• Satisfying one criterion does not "count" toward the threshold

• Strong evidence on two criteria is still insufficient alone

• The AAO will dismiss before evaluating merits if the threshold isn't met

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.