EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2012Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Apr052012_04B2203
AwardsMetExhibitionsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Dance instructor or choreographer petitioner claimed multiple EB-1A criteria but met only awards criterion. AAO applied Kazarian two-step test: counted evidence types and found fewer than three qualifying criteria met. Petitioner's ambiguous career focus between dance competition and instruction undermined claim. Appeal 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
- Awards · Director found petitioner established eligibility under this criterion
What was missing
- Exhibitions · Director found petitioner failed to establish eligibility under artistic display criterion
- Judging · AAO specifically reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet this criterion
- Membership · Director found insufficient evidence of membership in qualifying associations
- Published material · AAO specifically reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet plain language requirements
- Final merits · Petitioner met only one criterion (awards); failed to meet threshold of three types of evidence
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Met | Director found petitioner established eligibility under this criterion |
 Exhibitions | Not met | Director found petitioner failed to establish eligibility under artistic display criterion |
 Judging | Not met | AAO specifically reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet this criterion |
 Membership | Not met | Director found insufficient evidence of membership in qualifying associations |
 Published material | Not met | AAO specifically reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet plain language requirements |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed or discussed in this decision |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but not meaningfully analyzed; abandoned by counsel per decision logic |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner met only one criterion (awards); failed to meet threshold of three types of evidence |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.