EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2015Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB232015_01B2203
Published materialNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Self-petitioner, artist, sought EB-1A classification claiming published material criterion. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence was from local rather than major media, did not establish national or international reach, and petitioner failed to meet the three-criteria threshold required for extraordinary ability.
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
- Published material · Evidence from local media and publications lacked national or international reach; not major media
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria; did not demonstrate top percentage in field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Published material | Not met | Evidence from local media and publications lacked national or international reach; not major media |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria; did not demonstrate top percentage in field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.