EB-1AArts, design, architectureIndividualDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL192013_02B2203
Published materialMetOriginal contributionsNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A model sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew the director's adverse determination on published material, finding one criterion met. However, original contributions were insufficiently demonstrated. Petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion requirement and was not shown to possess top-tier expertise.
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
- Published material · AAO withdrew director's adverse determination; petitioner demonstrated eligibility under plain language requirements of this criterion.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Petitioner's claim that images bring increased revenue and brand recognition did not meet criterion's plain language requirements.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not establish eligibility; failed to meet three-criterion threshold under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Published material | Met | AAO withdrew director's adverse determination; petitioner demonstrated eligibility under plain language requirements of this criterion. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner's claim that images bring increased revenue and brand recognition did not meet criterion's plain language requirements. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate finding; criterion mentioned but not individually decided. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not establish eligibility; failed to meet three-criterion threshold under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.