EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2015Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG102015_01B2203
AwardsNot metPublished materialNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A martial artist petitioner sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria but submitted incomplete evidence: award certificates lacked certified translations, published materials were not about him or lacked required information. The AAO found he met none of three required criteria and dismissed the appeal.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Award certificates lacked certified English translations and failed to establish national or international recognition.
- Published material · Submitted materials were not about petitioner or lacked required title, date, and author information for publications.
- Final merits · Aggregate evidence does not support level of expertise required for extraordinary ability classification.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Award certificates lacked certified English translations and failed to establish national or international recognition. |
 Published material | Not met | Submitted materials were not about petitioner or lacked required title, date, and author information for publications. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed criterion but decision did not analyze this category. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed criterion but decision did not analyze this category. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed criterion but decision did not analyze this category. |
 Final merits | Not met | Aggregate evidence does not support level of expertise required for extraordinary ability classification. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.