EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR192005_03B2203
AwardsMetJudgingMetHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A self-petitioner art director in motion picture advertising sought EB-1A classification. Although the AAO found the petitioner met the awards and judging criteria, the decision affirmed dismissal because only two of the required three criteria were met and the evidence did not collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.
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
- Awards · Petitioner's awards indicate sustained national acclaim in field despite director's flawed analysis
- Judging · Evidence of petitioner's judging experience sufficient to establish eligibility in this category
What was missing
- High salary · Petitioner did not match 2001 income in subsequent years; evidence does not show repeatedly earned compensation reflecting sustained acclaim
- Leading or critical role · No corroborating evidence that petitioner held leading or critical role; other individuals also credited with awards
- Original contributions · Portfolio demonstrates successful employment but does not establish original artistic contributions of major significance
- Published material · Articles not about the petitioner; do not satisfy criterion requiring published material about alien
- Final merits · Petitioner talented and awarded but record insufficient to establish extraordinary ability; only two criteria met, three required
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Met | Petitioner's awards indicate sustained national acclaim in field despite director's flawed analysis |
 Judging | Met | Evidence of petitioner's judging experience sufficient to establish eligibility in this category |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner did not match 2001 income in subsequent years; evidence does not show repeatedly earned compensation reflecting sustained acclaim |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | No corroborating evidence that petitioner held leading or critical role; other individuals also credited with awards |
 Original contributions | Not met | Portfolio demonstrates successful employment but does not establish original artistic contributions of major significance |
 Published material | Not met | Articles not about the petitioner; do not satisfy criterion requiring published material about alien |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner talented and awarded but record insufficient to establish extraordinary ability; only two criteria met, three required |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.