Outcome: Dismissed
JUL052005_12B2203
Our summary
TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.
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
- Original contributions · Petitioner demonstrated influence on Australian television development and production
- Published material · Evidence of sustained work on television productions through 1996
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner associated with award-winning projects but not personally recipient of awards
- Commercial success · Personal contribution to commercial success not demonstrated beyond green-lighting decisions
- High salary · Did not establish significantly high remuneration compared to others in occupation
- Membership · Union and professional memberships not exclusive memberships contemplated by criterion
- Final merits · Although two criteria arguably met, evidence post-1996 is sparse and does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top level
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Petitioner demonstrated influence on Australian television development and production | |
| Met | Evidence of sustained work on television productions through 1996 | |
| Not met | Petitioner associated with award-winning projects but not personally recipient of awards | |
| Not met | Personal contribution to commercial success not demonstrated beyond green-lighting decisions | |
| Not met | Did not establish significantly high remuneration compared to others in occupation | |
| Not met | Union and professional memberships not exclusive memberships contemplated by criterion | |
| Not met | Although two criteria arguably met, evidence post-1996 is sparse and does not demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top level |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
