Published AAO appeal decisions

A hip-hop artist, music producer, and model from Russia sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed three criteria met: awards, published material, and commercial success. However, the final merits determination found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Performing artist petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found two criteria met but provided conclusory analysis on three others without adequate discussion of specific evidence. AAO remanded for proper reevaluation of all claimed criteria and, if three are satisfied, a final merits determination.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

Musician and band founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met four regulatory criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career reflecting small percentage at very top of field.

Spanish voiceover actor for dubbing and localization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because service center failed to address three claimed criteria despite petitioner providing evidence in initial petition and response to RFE, denying fair opportunity to contest on appeal.

Videographer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed four criteria but satisfied none. Television trophy and regional prize do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized awards. Website reports and event participation do not meet artistic exhibition standard. Videographer role at news agency insufficient for critical role criterion. Appeal dismissed.

A music composer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted published material and leading or critical role, and the appeal contested awards and display of work. The AAO dismissed it because only two criteria were met, fewer than the three needed, and reserved the final merits determination.