EB-1AArts, design, architectureEmployerDecided September 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP152021_02B2203
ExhibitionsMetLeading or critical roleMetMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A creative technologist employed in interactive multimedia displays petitioned for EB-1A classification. Two criteria were met: critical role and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because only two of three required criteria were satisfied and final merits showed no sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.
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
- Exhibitions · Director determined criterion met; AAO affirmed on appeal.
- Leading or critical role · Director determined criterion met; AAO affirmed on appeal.
What was missing
- Membership · Membership in SEGD was not achieved through outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts; based on successful project completion.
- Original contributions · Petitioner did not establish original contributions of major significance; letters only repeated regulatory language without substantiation.
- Published material · Materials lacked essential information (title, date, author); profiles did not pertain directly to petitioner.
- Final merits · Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Exhibitions | Met | Director determined criterion met; AAO affirmed on appeal. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director determined criterion met; AAO affirmed on appeal. |
 Membership | Not met | Membership in SEGD was not achieved through outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts; based on successful project completion. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner did not establish original contributions of major significance; letters only repeated regulatory language without substantiation. |
 Published material | Not met | Materials lacked essential information (title, date, author); profiles did not pertain directly to petitioner. |
 Final merits | Not met | Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.