EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsIndividualDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN112013_01B2203
High salaryMetAwardsNot metPublished materialNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An entertainer petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published material, and other criteria. The AAO found only high salary criterion met. Because at least three criteria must be satisfied, and only one was established, the petition failed to meet basic eligibility requirements. 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
- High salary · Petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under high salary criterion per regulatory requirements.
What was missing
- Awards · Director's conclusion that petitioner's single award not qualifying evidence not contested; plural award requirement not met.
- Published material · Evidence lacks required details; photographs without author identification and articles missing dates; material not in major media plural.
- Final merits · Only one of three required regulatory criteria met; insufficient to establish sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Met | Petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under high salary criterion per regulatory requirements. |
 Awards | Not met | Director's conclusion that petitioner's single award not qualifying evidence not contested; plural award requirement not met. |
 Published material | Not met | Evidence lacks required details; photographs without author identification and articles missing dates; material not in major media plural. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision. |
 Final merits | Not met | Only one of three required regulatory criteria met; insufficient to establish sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.