Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Mastering engineer in music industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed director's denial, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria; Grammy nomination is not prize, published material not from major publications, and contributions to books do not constitute scholarly authorship; lacks evidence of national or international acclaim.

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.