EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2016Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR182016_02B2203
ExhibitionsMetJudgingMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Chinese calligrapher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner claimed three additional criteria on appeal. AAO agreed petitioner failed to satisfy regulatory requirements for those criteria. Aggregate review did not support extraordinary ability level required.
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 · Director acknowledged petitioner submitted documentation of work displayed at artistic exhibitions
- Judging · Director acknowledged petitioner submitted documentation of judging work of others
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Multiple claimed titles lacked corroborating evidence of distinguished organization reputation or actual roles and responsibilities
- Original contributions · Complimentary letters and certificates lacked details demonstrating contributions of major significance to field
- Final merits · Petitioner met only two criteria; aggregate record does not establish required level of expertise for extraordinary ability
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Director acknowledged petitioner submitted documentation of work displayed at artistic exhibitions |
 Judging | Met | Director acknowledged petitioner submitted documentation of judging work of others |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Multiple claimed titles lacked corroborating evidence of distinguished organization reputation or actual roles and responsibilities |
 Original contributions | Not met | Complimentary letters and certificates lacked details demonstrating contributions of major significance to field |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner met only two criteria; aggregate record does not establish required level of expertise for extraordinary ability |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.