Published AAO appeal decisions

Filmmaker with thirty years experience claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed awards and membership were not met, published material insufficient, and exhibitions alone do not establish sustained national or international acclaim required.

An audio-video editor, filmmaker, and producer sought EB-2 and NIW. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for EB-2 classification, lacking adequate credentials evaluation and not meeting the advanced degree or exceptional ability requirements.

A musician sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no major internationally recognized award and none of the ten alternative criteria satisfied. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it only made general assertions of error, mistakenly requested a national interest waiver, and repeated earlier submissions without identifying specific errors.

Gospel singer from Brazil sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. AAO affirmed service center denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability, including insufficient documentation of ten years full-time experience and lack of recognition for significant contributions to field.

Choreographer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in arts. Petitioner submitted evidence of exhibitions and claimed six additional criteria. AAO found only exhibitions criterion met; awards, membership, published material, and original contributions not established; appeal dismissed.

Film director/editor seeking EB-2 with national interest waiver initially proposed teaching cinematic arts, then shifted to establishing a business teaching film production. AAO dismissed because material change to proposed endeavor was impermissible; original endeavor lacked sufficient detail to analyze national importance.

A disc jockey and sound producer sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts, claiming a number of regulatory criteria. The AAO treated the field as DJ and sound production, found the evidence on awards and published material insufficient, and held that three criteria were not satisfied, so it dismissed the appeal.

Fashion model with O-1 nonimmigrant status sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she satisfied only one of ten initial evidentiary criteria; comparable evidence argument without demonstrating inapplicability of specific criteria was rejected; insufficient proof of sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner film director and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one of six required criteria met. Evidence of awards, original contributions, exhibitions, and critical roles was insufficient or unsupported. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Sports journalist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only judging criterion; published material and leading role criteria not established. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for classification to top small percentage in field.

Argentine theater and television actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; AAO found he met published materials and exhibitions but not three total required. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Theatrical producer seeking EB-1A classification. Met four of ten initial criteria (published material, display, leading role, commercial success) but failed final merits analysis. Director's decision lacked thorough evaluation of all evidence and did not adequately explain why achievements failed to demonstrate small percentage at field top. Remanded for complete final merits analysis.

A bassoonist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability satisfied two of ten evidentiary criteria: judging and artistic exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a third required criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

Recording engineer and producer from Brazil claiming seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only published material criterion met, not the required three. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at very top of field despite successful work with well-known artists.

Television and motion picture producer claimed five criteria for EB-1A. AAO rejected published material, judging, and critical role findings; awards and exhibitions not reached. Fewer than three criteria met; no demonstrated sustained acclaim.

Armenian pop and folk musician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding petitioner met only two of ten criteria (awards and artistic display) but needed three, and did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place at top of field.

A musician who plays a folk stringed instrument sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The Director found four met. The AAO withdrew two of those findings, leaving only two criteria satisfied, short of the required three, and dismissed the appeal.

A film and media editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though he met only one criterion (exhibitions), the AAO rejected awards and leading role findings due to insufficient documentation. He failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A television host sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming seven criteria on appeal. The Director had accepted only judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding awards, published material and original contributions unproven, leaving the petitioner short of three criteria, and noting that sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not shown.

Sound engineer and technical director in television and radio industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Failed to meet three of ten initial evidentiary criteria; judging and exhibitions claims withdrawn or unsupported, original contributions lacked objective attribution. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient sustained acclaim.

An actor sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. The service center denied the petition partly because the petitioner failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the field in the United States despite requests for evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal without addressing the claimed evidentiary criteria because the petitioner waived the intent to work issue.

Composer seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met. Record showed employment with major studios in increasing responsibility under established composer, but work on projects was supporting and uncredited. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner progressing toward top but lacking sustained national or international acclaim required.

An actress in Chinese film and television sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required under the two-part Kazarian analysis.

Musician and music group leader seeking extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two met by director. AAO found published material and artistic display criteria satisfied but rejected awards and original contributions claims. Final merits determination found petitioner progressing toward top but lacking sustained acclaim required for classification.

Film, commercial, and music video producer and founding executive of production company seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.