Outcome: Dismissed
FEB122014_01B2203
Our summary
An employer petitioned for an animator in EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner failed to establish three qualifying criteria: awards were given to films, not the individual; published material was not about the beneficiary; and the animator's role was not shown as leading or critical to organizational success.
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 · Beneficiary was not named recipient of awards; they were bestowed on films or production companies, not the individual animator.
- Leading or critical role · Evidence did not show beneficiary's animator role was leading or critical to company success or standing.
- Published material · Submitted articles were not about the beneficiary as required by plain language of regulation.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria; did not meet antecedent regulatory requirement.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Beneficiary was not named recipient of awards; they were bestowed on films or production companies, not the individual animator. | |
| Not met | Evidence did not show beneficiary's animator role was leading or critical to company success or standing. | |
| Not met | Submitted articles were not about the beneficiary as required by plain language of regulation. | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria; did not meet antecedent regulatory requirement. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
