EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB272013_02B2203
ExhibitionsMetJudgingMetOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An artist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found judging and exhibitions criteria met but concluded published material and original contributions unproven. Without sufficient criteria met, the petition was denied and appeal dismissed.
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 determined petitioner satisfied regulatory requirements for display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; AAO affirmed.
- Judging · Letter evidence satisfied plain language requirements; AAO withdrew director's finding and concluded criterion met.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Sales list and plagiarism legal action insufficient; imitation does not demonstrate major significance impact in field.
- Published material · Newspaper clippings and magazine articles insufficient; many only photo captions or partial translations lacking required publication details.
- Final merits · Despite meeting two individual criteria, petitioner failed to establish eligibility by preponderance of evidence overall.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Director determined petitioner satisfied regulatory requirements for display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; AAO affirmed. |
 Judging | Met | Letter evidence satisfied plain language requirements; AAO withdrew director's finding and concluded criterion met. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Sales list and plagiarism legal action insufficient; imitation does not demonstrate major significance impact in field. |
 Published material | Not met | Newspaper clippings and magazine articles insufficient; many only photo captions or partial translations lacking required publication details. |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting two individual criteria, petitioner failed to establish eligibility by preponderance of evidence overall. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.