EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsIndividualDecided February 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB092026_01B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metExhibitionsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Film producer petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS found four criteria met but denied for insufficient sustained acclaim at top of field. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion (judging) actually met and threshold not satisfied.
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
- Judging · Petitioner established participation as judge of work of others in field.
What was missing
- Awards · Recognition was for growth potential, not excellence in producing field.
- Exhibitions · Petitioner did not establish work displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not establish leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.
- Membership · PGA membership not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Published material · Articles focused on projects, not sufficiently about petitioner; marketing material.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner established participation as judge of work of others in field. |
 Awards | Not met | Recognition was for growth potential, not excellence in producing field. |
 Exhibitions | Not met | Petitioner did not establish work displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not establish leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. |
 Membership | Not met | PGA membership not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles focused on projects, not sufficiently about petitioner; marketing material. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Threshold initial evidence requirements not satisfied; final merits analysis reserved. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.