Outcome: Dismissed
Aug152012_01B2203
Our summary
A film director and writer sought extraordinary ability classification, with counsel never clearly tying evidence to specific criteria. The AAO found counsel failed to identify which criteria applied, treated a director's misstatement of field as harmless, and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not carry the burden of proof.
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
- Leading or critical role · Director's finding of insufficient evidence was not shown to be erroneous; counsel gave no specific explanation on appeal.
- Original contributions · Director's finding of insufficient evidence was not shown to be erroneous; counsel gave no specific explanation on appeal.
- Published material · Counsel did not contest this criterion on appeal, and submitted items lacked required elements such as author identification.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Director's finding of insufficient evidence was not shown to be erroneous; counsel gave no specific explanation on appeal. | |
| Not met | Director's finding of insufficient evidence was not shown to be erroneous; counsel gave no specific explanation on appeal. | |
| Not met | Counsel did not contest this criterion on appeal, and submitted items lacked required elements such as author identification. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director noted no evidence was submitted. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director noted no evidence was submitted. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the appellate discussion. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director noted no evidence was submitted. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
