EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2018Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN192018_02B2203
MembershipNot metPublished materialNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
High fashion photographer sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in arts. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but AAO analyzed only membership and published material, finding neither met. Decision concluded petitioner failed three-criterion threshold without reaching remaining claimed criteria.
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
- Membership · Inclusion in book does not constitute membership; standards not shown equivalent to outstanding achievements by experts.
- Published material · Articles did not pertain to petitioner; depasha.com not established as major medium; missing required title, date, author.
- Final merits · Aggregate review does not establish level of expertise indicating one of small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Membership | Not met | Inclusion in book does not constitute membership; standards not shown equivalent to outstanding achievements by experts. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles did not pertain to petitioner; depasha.com not established as major medium; missing required title, date, author. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but no evidence of artistic display or exhibitions analyzed by decision. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but no analysis provided regarding salary or remuneration evidence. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but no evidence of participation as judge presented or analyzed by decision. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but no evidence of leading or critical role analyzed by decision. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but no evidence of original contributions of major significance analyzed by decision. |
 Final merits | Not met | Aggregate review does not establish level of expertise indicating one of small percentage at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.