Outcome: Dismissed
JUN112024_02B2203
Our summary
A television producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three of the required ten regulatory criteria. She failed to establish a major award, proper professional association membership, contemporaneous published material about her, and judging participation that existed at the time of filing.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · No evidence of major, internationally recognized one-time achievement award.
- Judging · Approved jury panel participation was scheduled for 2022, years after 2020 petition filing, so does not establish eligibility at time of filing.
- Membership · Membership in Union of Journalists of Kazakhstan does not require outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts as required by criterion.
- Published material · Newspaper article cited was published in 2022, after 2020 petition filing, so does not establish eligibility at time of filing.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not establish three of ten required criteria; record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | No evidence of major, internationally recognized one-time achievement award. | |
| Not met | Approved jury panel participation was scheduled for 2022, years after 2020 petition filing, so does not establish eligibility at time of filing. | |
| Not met | Membership in Union of Journalists of Kazakhstan does not require outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts as required by criterion. | |
| Not met | Newspaper article cited was published in 2022, after 2020 petition filing, so does not establish eligibility at time of filing. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Seventh criterion not analyzed; only four of seven claimed criteria reviewed before threshold failure determined. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Fifth criterion not analyzed; only four of seven claimed criteria reviewed before threshold failure determined. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Sixth criterion not analyzed; only four of seven claimed criteria reviewed before threshold failure determined. | |
| Not met | Petitioner did not establish three of ten required criteria; record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
