Outcome: Dismissed
DEC212005_18B2203
Our summary
Oil painter from China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed awards, publications, judging roles, and international exhibitions. AAO found awards too remote in time, publications inadequately documented, judging evidence absent, and no sustained international acclaim demonstrated after early national recognition.
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 · Awards received nine and five years before filing do not demonstrate sustained acclaim
- Commercial success · No evidence of repeatedly high sales prices compared to other oil painters in China or US
- Exhibitions · Exhibitions not documented to demonstrate sustained acclaim after initial 1994 and 1998 national showings
- Judging · Evidence lacks demonstration of national art competition judging or sustained international acclaim
- Original contributions · No evidence that work critically acclaimed or significantly influenced artists or scholars
- Published material · Book inclusion and journal review lack required documentation; deficient translations submitted twice
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Awards received nine and five years before filing do not demonstrate sustained acclaim | |
| Not met | No evidence of repeatedly high sales prices compared to other oil painters in China or US | |
| Not met | Exhibitions not documented to demonstrate sustained acclaim after initial 1994 and 1998 national showings | |
| Not met | Evidence lacks demonstration of national art competition judging or sustained international acclaim | |
| Not met | No evidence that work critically acclaimed or significantly influenced artists or scholars | |
| Not met | Book inclusion and journal review lack required documentation; deficient translations submitted twice | |
| Not met | Evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
