An arts field professional represented by counsel claimed extraordinary ability through published material and judging participation. The AAO rejected published material as lacking complete translations and appearing in insufficient outlets, and found judging role did not evidence top-level sustained acclaim. Aggregate evidence insufficient.

Art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A vice president and chief content officer at a media company sought EB-1A classification. She met three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. However, the AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A literary nonfiction and business writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied none of the three required criteria, reversing the director's findings on membership and published material as unsupported by evidence of recognition by experts or publication in major media, and dismissed the appeal.