EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL052005_02B2203
Leading or critical roleMetOriginal contributionsMetAwardsNot metCommercial successNot metHigh salaryNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A development and publicity consultant and independent producer for television and film sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The AAO accepted two as met but found the rest unmet, so fewer than three were satisfied. It also found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.
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
- Leading or critical role · Director found it met; AAO concurred despite sparse evidence after 1996, though a third criterion was missing.
- Original contributions · Director found the criterion met and the AAO concurred, noting little recent evidence.
What was missing
- Awards · Association with award-winning projects shown, but no individual recognition or personal awards demonstrated.
- Commercial success · Personal contribution to commercial success beyond approving projects for development was not demonstrated; series longevity was not recent evidence.
- High salary · Petitioner did not show significantly high remuneration compared with others in the same occupation.
- Judging · Participation described did not establish judging the work of others as the criterion requires.
- Membership · Union and professional memberships are not the exclusive, achievement-based associations the criterion contemplates.
- Published material · Older article and evidence of influence abroad do not show sustained acclaim as of the filing date.
- Final merits · Evidence showed talent but not sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director found it met; AAO concurred despite sparse evidence after 1996, though a third criterion was missing. |
 Original contributions | Met | Director found the criterion met and the AAO concurred, noting little recent evidence. |
 Awards | Not met | Association with award-winning projects shown, but no individual recognition or personal awards demonstrated. |
 Commercial success | Not met | Personal contribution to commercial success beyond approving projects for development was not demonstrated; series longevity was not recent evidence. |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner did not show significantly high remuneration compared with others in the same occupation. |
 Judging | Not met | Participation described did not establish judging the work of others as the criterion requires. |
 Membership | Not met | Union and professional memberships are not the exclusive, achievement-based associations the criterion contemplates. |
 Published material | Not met | Older article and evidence of influence abroad do not show sustained acclaim as of the filing date. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence showed talent but not sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.