EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided February 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB242023_02B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metCommercial successNot metExhibitionsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Fashion model with over a decade of experience and O-1 status claimed six regulatory criteria. Director found only judging criterion satisfied. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability, lacking major awards and failing to demonstrate sufficient impact through publications, original contributions, or critical roles.
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 · Director determined petitioner satisfied judging criterion
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner did not establish receipt of major internationally recognized award
- Commercial success · Director concluded commercial success criterion not met through comparable evidence
- Exhibitions · Director concluded display of work criterion not met through comparable evidence
- Leading or critical role · Director concluded petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical role
- Original contributions · Petitioner did not show claimed contribution resulted in significant impact in field
- Published material · Publications did not qualify as major media at time of publication; circulation data lacking
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top tier status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner satisfied judging criterion |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not establish receipt of major internationally recognized award |
 Commercial success | Not met | Director concluded commercial success criterion not met through comparable evidence |
 Exhibitions | Not met | Director concluded display of work criterion not met through comparable evidence |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Director concluded petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical role |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner did not show claimed contribution resulted in significant impact in field |
 Published material | Not met | Publications did not qualify as major media at time of publication; circulation data lacking |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top tier status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.