A furniture designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: awards, published material, and exhibitions. The AAO found he met awards and exhibitions criteria but failed published material because he provided no objective evidence establishing that articles were published in major media or professional trade publications.

Software design company petitioned for visual designer beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed awards, leading role, and one other criterion. AAO found only two criteria met, insufficient for eligibility, and did not reach final merits determination.

An architectural designer employed by a real estate development company sought O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria but only met two. AAO found published materials insufficient, lead role claim unsupported by evidence that beneficiary merely interned, and testimonials from colleagues lacked demonstrated recognition outside that circle. Appeal dismissed.

An artist blacksmith sought extraordinary ability classification. Although the petitioner demonstrated three evidentiary criteria met, the AAO affirmed dismissal because the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.