EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided December 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC102025_03B2203
ExhibitionsMetJudgingMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An archival researcher and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of six claimed criteria: judging and artistic display. The AAO dismissed her appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she represented a career of acclaimed work at the very top of her field.
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 · Petitioner established work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases
- Judging · Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence meeting plain language of regulation
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence
- Original contributions · Work samples alone insufficient without evidence of major significance to field
- Final merits · Although two criteria met, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Petitioner established work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases |
 Judging | Met | Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence meeting plain language of regulation |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence |
 Original contributions | Not met | Work samples alone insufficient without evidence of major significance to field |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed or discussed in decision |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner satisfied two criteria, sufficient to proceed to final merits |
 Final merits | Not met | Although two criteria met, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.