EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsIndividualDecided April 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR162021_03B2203
JudgingMetMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An actress and model claimed six EB-1A criteria. The AAO found she met only the judging criterion and dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim as required for this highly restrictive classification.
Official PDF
The official PDF link for this decision is being verified.
Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Petitioner served as jury member at film festival in 2016, establishing judging criterion.
What was missing
- Membership · Club membership lacked evidence that outstanding achievement was required; membership committee not shown to be recognized experts.
- Published material · Submitted publications lacked circulation numbers and did not meet major media threshold for professional or trade outlets.
- Final merits · Decision concludes petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner served as jury member at film festival in 2016, establishing judging criterion. |
 Membership | Not met | Club membership lacked evidence that outstanding achievement was required; membership committee not shown to be recognized experts. |
 Published material | Not met | Submitted publications lacked circulation numbers and did not meet major media threshold for professional or trade outlets. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not discussed; decision does not analyze this criterion. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail; decision does not reach this criterion. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but analysis focuses on other criteria; decision does not analyze original contributions claim. |
 Final merits | Not met | Decision concludes petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.