Published AAO appeal decisions

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria and met only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy the three-criterion minimum. His published materials were not verifiable or in major outlets, his membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, his salary was not significantly high compared to peers, and his commercial success was insufficient by volume.

A videographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met published material and exhibitions criteria, contrary to the Director's decision, and remanded for final merits review to assess sustained acclaim and standing among the very top in her field.

Video editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion (exhibitions); two withdrawn on review (judging, high salary lack proper evidence). Failed to meet three-criterion threshold and demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A film content creator sought NIW for EB-2 as individual of exceptional ability. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only one of six required criteria for exceptional ability, failing to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility; NIW Dhanasar prongs reserved.

A television and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, adopting the service center's detailed analysis that the petitioner failed to establish receipt of major internationally recognized awards or satisfaction of three required evidentiary criteria, and thus did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Film and television producer sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification and national interest waiver. AAO affirmed service center denial, finding petitioner met only two of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability; letters lacked specific detail on recognition and awards lacked nexus to petitioner's contributions.

A combat zone camera operator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because although petitioner meets three initial evidentiary criteria, the overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; one film festival appearance and three television interviews over 14 years do not demonstrate the career of acclaimed work required.

Filmmaker with thirty years experience claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed awards and membership were not met, published material insufficient, and exhibitions alone do not establish sustained national or international acclaim required.

An audio-video editor, filmmaker, and producer sought EB-2 and NIW. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for EB-2 classification, lacking adequate credentials evaluation and not meeting the advanced degree or exceptional ability requirements.

A musician sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no major internationally recognized award and none of the ten alternative criteria satisfied. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it only made general assertions of error, mistakenly requested a national interest waiver, and repeated earlier submissions without identifying specific errors.