EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided February 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB032021_03B2203
ExhibitionsMetJudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metCommercial successNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Self-petitioner artist and former professor claiming extraordinary ability as painter. Met three evidentiary criteria: exhibitions, scholarly articles, and judging. AAO found the final merits step failed: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the 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 · Director found petitioner met criterion for display of work at artistic exhibitions; AAO affirmed
- Judging · Work as judge for design award met criterion requirements
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles; AAO affirmed
What was missing
- Awards · Award shared by 30 artists; not top prize; venue not shown to be prestigious or internationally recognized
- Commercial success · Evidence insufficient to show work successfully commercialized to demonstrate national or international acclaim
- Original contributions · Reference letters describe work as innovative but no evidence others adopted or were inspired by petitioner's work
- Published material · Evidence does not show publications had significant circulation or visibility in art field or general public
- Final merits · Despite meeting three criteria, totality of evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Director found petitioner met criterion for display of work at artistic exhibitions; AAO affirmed |
 Judging | Met | Work as judge for design award met criterion requirements |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles; AAO affirmed |
 Awards | Not met | Award shared by 30 artists; not top prize; venue not shown to be prestigious or internationally recognized |
 Commercial success | Not met | Evidence insufficient to show work successfully commercialized to demonstrate national or international acclaim |
 Original contributions | Not met | Reference letters describe work as innovative but no evidence others adopted or were inspired by petitioner's work |
 Published material | Not met | Evidence does not show publications had significant circulation or visibility in art field or general public |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the decision |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting three criteria, totality of evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.