A satellite television news producer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, judging, scholarly articles, a leading role and contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards, media coverage, judging and contribution evidence insufficient and the aggregate record short of the required expertise. The decision's treatment of the scholarly articles and leading role criteria is internally inconsistent.

Film and television producer sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. AAO affirmed service center denial, finding petitioner met only two of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability; letters lacked specific detail on recognition and awards lacked nexus to petitioner's contributions.

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.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.