Published AAO appeal decisions

A percussionist who accompanies well-known artists sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO held that awards, membership, exhibitions and commercial success were not satisfied, reserved two others, and so found fewer than three criteria. It added that the record showed no sustained acclaim.

A television and movie producer in China claimed extraordinary ability, satisfying only scholarly articles of ten criteria. The AAO affirmed that five additional claimed criteria were not met or lacked sufficient evidence, and concluded no extraordinary ability was shown, dismissing the appeal.

A filmmaker who mainly worked as a first assistant director sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only judging and exhibitions satisfied, rejecting the others, and dismissed the appeal because the record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top.

A visual effects producer claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria. The AAO found the petitioner did not satisfy at least three required criteria: membership evidence was insufficient, recommendation letters lacked specificity about major contributions, and work did not demonstrate field-wide impact or sustained international acclaim.

A violinist claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, and leading critical role. Only judging and leading critical role criteria were established. Awards, membership, and published material claims were rejected. Acclaim by association with prestigious institutions insufficient. Appeal dismissed.

The petitioner is a stage, television and film actress seeking extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed several evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the initial three-criteria requirement unmet because awards, membership and leading-role evidence fell short, and the record did not show sustained acclaim.

Professional cellist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met four of five criteria (membership, judging, exhibitions, leading role). Published material criterion not met. Final merits determination found insufficient sustained international acclaim and top-tier standing in field. Appeal dismissed.

A trombonist, arranger, and director in the entertainment field met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected awards and membership despite director's findings, and rejected published material. With only two criteria met, no final merits analysis was required; aggregate evidence failed to show top-tier status.

A clarinetist who performed with orchestras and choirs claimed four criteria: awards, membership, leading or critical role, and commercial success. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards and membership criteria unmet because evidence was uncorroborated and inconsistent, and it did not reach the other two criteria.