Published AAO appeal decisions

Violist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in the arts. AAO found she satisfied only one of ten required criteria, lacking sufficient evidence of national or international recognition, critical roles, or commercial success to demonstrate sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A talent agency petitioned for a hip-hop/street jazz dancer and instructor for O-1A classification. The agency claimed an award, lead roles in productions, and published material about the beneficiary. The AAO found the award lacked national or international prominence, the dancer was one of several performers rather than lead, and articles did not establish distinguished roles, dismissing the appeal.

Film director and screenwriter appealed EB-1A denial. Met only one of ten criteria (judging). AAO reversed director's favorable finding on awards and rejected claims of published material, original contributions, and high salary due to insufficient documentation and specificity.

A pop singer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming a major award and eight regulatory criteria. The appeals office found no qualifying one-time achievement and fewer than three criteria satisfied, citing missing evidence of recognition, membership requirements, media details and sales receipts. The appeal was dismissed, with the aggregate record also falling short.

Peking opera performer met three initial criteria but appeal dismissed on two grounds: lack of credible intent to continue performing in field upon entry, and failure to demonstrate sustained acclaim through filing date. Prior recognition ended by 2010.

A video production and advertising company petitioned for O-1A classification for a director of videography and producer. AAO dismissed appeal, finding beneficiary failed to meet evidentiary criteria: awards were employer's not beneficiary's; future distinguished employment not established; published material and salary evidence insufficient.

An actor and voice-acting instructor sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met the awards and exhibitions criteria but failed the salary, critical role, and original contributions criteria. With only two of three required criteria satisfied, the appeal was dismissed.

Actor in motion picture and television sponsored by talent agency for O-1 classification. Agency met only one of six regulatory criteria; decision found petitioner did not establish roles with distinguished reputation or organizations and did not satisfy three-criterion threshold required for extraordinary achievement in film and television.

Dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria but met only one. Decision held that nominating is not receiving an award, performances lack field impact, and background dancer role lacks responsibility for organizational success or commercial outcomes.

An agent sought O-1A classification for an actor beneficiary. The beneficiary satisfied only one of six required criteria; the decision found insufficient evidence of future leading roles and failed to provide required consultation from a peer group in performing arts, resulting in dismissal.

A video producer and director claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he failed to establish initial evidence, meeting only two criteria when three were required and lacking a major internationally recognized one-time achievement. Aggregate evidence did not demonstrate the expertise level required for this classification.

An actor from Nepal sought EB-1A classification as an artist of extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria: published material, awards, and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the very top of his field.