EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided August 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG082024_02B2203
ExhibitionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Speculative designer claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding only two criteria met (scholarly articles and artistic display). Award lacked international recognition documentation, article published in non-major media, and leading role was contract work lacking organizational distinction. Overall evidence did not establish upper-echelon status.
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 artistic display criterion satisfied
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications
What was missing
- Awards · Award lacked sufficient documentation of national or international recognition and significance in field
- Leading or critical role · Performed contract work on project basis, not as employee in leading role for organization with distinguished reputation
- Published material · Article appeared in non-major media lacking sufficient readership or authority to meet criterion
- Final merits · Insufficient evidence demonstrating petitioner among upper echelon in field showing sustained acclaim
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Director acknowledged artistic display criterion satisfied |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications |
 Awards | Not met | Award lacked sufficient documentation of national or international recognition and significance in field |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Performed contract work on project basis, not as employee in leading role for organization with distinguished reputation |
 Published material | Not met | Article appeared in non-major media lacking sufficient readership or authority to meet criterion |
 Final merits | Not met | Insufficient evidence demonstrating petitioner among upper echelon in field showing sustained acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.