Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AMarketing, media, communicationsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUL052005_12B2203

Original contributionsMetPublished materialMetAwardsNot metCommercial successNot metHigh salaryNot metMembershipNot metFinal meritsNot met

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

CriterionReadingWhy
Original contributionsMetPetitioner demonstrated influence on Australian television development and production
Published materialMetEvidence of sustained work on television productions through 1996
AwardsNot metPetitioner associated with award-winning projects but not personally recipient of awards
Commercial successNot metPersonal contribution to commercial success not demonstrated beyond green-lighting decisions
High salaryNot metDid not establish significantly high remuneration compared to others in occupation
MembershipNot metUnion and professional memberships not exclusive memberships contemplated by criterion
Final meritsNot metAlthough 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.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.