Published AAO appeal decisions

Artist (calligrapher-graphic artist) seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner submitted certificates, membership evidence, article, and videotape. AAO found evidence insufficient for any criterion and that petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; petition dismissed.

Hair stylist claiming extraordinary ability based on South American awards and professional positions. AAO held awards insufficient: insufficient documentation and no sustained acclaim for ten years before filing. Position as judge and television work held too long ago. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

A self-petitioner art director in motion picture advertising sought EB-1A classification. Although the AAO found the petitioner met the awards and judging criteria, the decision affirmed dismissal because only two of the required three criteria were met and the evidence did not collectively demonstrate extraordinary ability at the very top of the field.

Musician and musical director filed EB-1A petition claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only two of ten required criteria. AAO found regional success and upward career trajectory but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner, a visual artist, claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on awards, membership, publications, and salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field despite being a successful artist.

A jewelry designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met the published material criterion through exhibitions. However, the AAO found only one criterion met when three are required and concluded evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

A pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming criteria through awards, published material, judging, performances, and critical role at a distinguished institution. The AAO found only one criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of her field.

A pianist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found only one criterion met despite counsel's submissions and dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Hair stylist from Argentina seeking EB-1A classification claiming awards, judging roles, and leadership positions from the 1980s-early 1990s. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim through filing date and no evidence of continued prominence in field.

Self-petitioner pianist claimed extraordinary ability in the arts through awards, published material, judging, exhibitions, critical role, and salary criteria. AAO found only the critical role criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Art director in entertainment advertising claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met: awards indicating sustained national acclaim and judging experience. However, original contributions and leading role not established; high salary not sustained. Overall evidence insufficient to show petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top.

Self-petitioner visual artist in arts seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and high salary. AAO found no major international recognition, unverified association membership, local press coverage insufficient, and no evidence of top-tier compensation. Appeal dismissed.

Senior game designer sought EB-1A classification. Met only scholarly articles criterion. AAO found prior approval notice was issued in error by computer without favorable adjudication. Evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.