EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsIndividualDecided January 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN242020_02B2203
ExhibitionsMetJudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetMembershipMetPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Professional cellist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met four of five criteria (membership, judging, exhibitions, leading role). Published material criterion not met. Final merits determination found insufficient sustained international acclaim and top-tier standing in field. 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 · Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal
- Judging · Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal
- Leading or critical role · Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal
- Membership · Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal
What was missing
- Published material · Provincial newspaper lacks significant national or international distribution; blogs and performance reviews do not meet requirements
- Final merits · Met four of five initial criteria but lacks sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal |
 Judging | Met | Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal |
 Membership | Met | Service center director granted this criterion; petitioner did not dispute on appeal |
 Published material | Not met | Provincial newspaper lacks significant national or international distribution; blogs and performance reviews do not meet requirements |
 Final merits | Not met | Met four of five initial criteria but lacks sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.