Outcome: Dismissed
DEC182020_01B2203
Our summary
A television and movie producer in China claimed extraordinary ability, satisfying only scholarly articles of ten criteria. The AAO affirmed that five additional claimed criteria were not met or lacked sufficient evidence, and concluded no extraordinary ability was shown, dismissing the appeal.
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
- Scholarly articles · Service center and AAO agree this criterion satisfied
What was missing
- Awards · Television series awards not shown to be personally received by petitioner as producer
- Membership · Committee position and association membership do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
- Final merits · Record does not show petitioner among upper echelon in television and film industry
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Service center and AAO agree this criterion satisfied | |
| Not met | Television series awards not shown to be personally received by petitioner as producer | |
| Not met | Committee position and association membership do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion | |
| Not met | Record does not show petitioner among upper echelon in television and film industry |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
