EB-1AArts, design, architectureEmployerDecided 2018Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN172018_01B2203
ExhibitionsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Salon employing artistic director and master hair colorist sought extraordinary ability classification in arts. Failed to meet three initial criteria. Published material was brief listing; original contributions lacked major significance; exhibition evidence insufficient. No one-time achievement demonstrated.
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
- Exhibitions · Work as hairdresser for fashion shoot not equivalent to display at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
- Original contributions · Letters of recommendation insufficient; styling prominent clients not comparable to criterion requiring major significance.
- Published material · Magazine article was a brief listing, not published material about alien; publication not established as major media.
- Final merits · AAO reviewed record in aggregate and found insufficient expertise for classification despite not reaching formal Kazarian analysis.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Not met | Work as hairdresser for fashion shoot not equivalent to display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters of recommendation insufficient; styling prominent clients not comparable to criterion requiring major significance. |
 Published material | Not met | Magazine article was a brief listing, not published material about alien; publication not established as major media. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but decision did not analyze this criterion substantively. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision stated need not address if initial criteria not met; appellant requested review but not analyzed. |
 Final merits | Not met | AAO reviewed record in aggregate and found insufficient expertise for classification despite not reaching formal Kazarian analysis. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.