EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2019Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR162019_03B2203
ExhibitionsMetMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An artist and art teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met only one of ten required criteria: exhibition displays. Her membership rating and letters of support failed to establish major contributions. The overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Exhibitions · Petitioner's work was displayed at exhibitions in Russia, satisfying display criterion.
What was missing
- Membership · Organization membership rated petitioner as forming professional artist, not meeting outstanding achievements threshold; multiple higher rating categories existed.
- Original contributions · Letters of support lacked sufficiently detailed information and corroborating documentation to demonstrate major significance of artistic contributions.
- Final merits · Overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Petitioner's work was displayed at exhibitions in Russia, satisfying display criterion. |
 Membership | Not met | Organization membership rated petitioner as forming professional artist, not meeting outstanding achievements threshold; multiple higher rating categories existed. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters of support lacked sufficiently detailed information and corroborating documentation to demonstrate major significance of artistic contributions. |
 Final merits | Not met | Overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.