Outcome: Dismissed
Dec212011_01B2203
Our summary
Visual effects professional claimed extraordinary ability through multiple regulatory criteria and comparable evidence. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner failed to meet the high burden of demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and belonging among the very top of the field, despite meeting high salary criterion.
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
- High salary · Director determined petitioner met this criterion
What was missing
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director determined petitioner met this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director dismissed without addressing criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director dismissed without addressing criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director dismissed without addressing criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director dismissed without addressing criterion | |
| Not met | Evidence does not establish sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
