Outcome: Dismissed
AUG022016_01B2203
Our summary
A college television station petitioned for a cinematographer and broadcast associate as an artist of extraordinary ability. The appeals office found two criteria satisfied, exhibitions and critical role, and withdrew the director's judging finding. Awards, published material and original contributions failed, so the minimum of three was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.
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 · Articles and brochures confirmed films the beneficiary worked on were shown at film festivals.
- Leading or critical role · Executive director attested the beneficiary's cinematography skills were essential to the organization's broadcasts, and the AAO agreed.
What was missing
- Awards · No evidence of selection criteria or applicant pools showed the festival awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
- Judging · Director's favorable finding withdrawn; judging event occurred after filing and was not claimed initially.
- Original contributions · Letters did not show an original artistic contribution of major significance in the field.
- Published material · Submitted newspaper article and film reviews were not primarily about the beneficiary.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Articles and brochures confirmed films the beneficiary worked on were shown at film festivals. | |
| Met | Executive director attested the beneficiary's cinematography skills were essential to the organization's broadcasts, and the AAO agreed. | |
| Not met | No evidence of selection criteria or applicant pools showed the festival awards were nationally or internationally recognized. | |
| Not met | Director's favorable finding withdrawn; judging event occurred after filing and was not claimed initially. | |
| Not met | Letters did not show an original artistic contribution of major significance in the field. | |
| Not met | Submitted newspaper article and film reviews were not primarily about the beneficiary. | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Aggregate review did not show the level of expertise required, though a formal merits analysis was unnecessary. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
