EB-1AMarketing, media, communicationsIndividualDecided May 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY262021_03B2203
AwardsMetJudgingMetExhibitionsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A video journalist sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed that the awards and judging criteria were met but found membership, published material, exhibitions and leading role unmet. Overall, the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.
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
- Awards · Director's finding that the lesser awards criterion was satisfied was agreed with on review.
- Judging · Director's finding that the judging criterion was satisfied was agreed with on review.
What was missing
- Exhibitions · No showing that his journalism or documentaries were displayed at artistic exhibitions; comparable evidence argument also rejected.
- Leading or critical role · No independent proof that the organizations had a distinguished reputation; camera teams were not such organizations.
- Membership · Association membership requirements were not documented, so outstanding achievement judged by experts was not shown.
- Published material · Articles appeared in local community newspapers, not shown to be professional or major media.
- Final merits · Career with prominent employers and colleague letters did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Met | Director's finding that the lesser awards criterion was satisfied was agreed with on review. |
 Judging | Met | Director's finding that the judging criterion was satisfied was agreed with on review. |
 Exhibitions | Not met | No showing that his journalism or documentaries were displayed at artistic exhibitions; comparable evidence argument also rejected. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | No independent proof that the organizations had a distinguished reputation; camera teams were not such organizations. |
 Membership | Not met | Association membership requirements were not documented, so outstanding achievement judged by experts was not shown. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles appeared in local community newspapers, not shown to be professional or major media. |
 Final merits | Not met | Career with prominent employers and colleague letters did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.