All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the AAO found that a research grant was not awarded to the Petitioner personally, and a patent from Armenia did not qualify as an award for excellence (criterion i). Memberships were deemed employment-based or lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements (criterion ii). Published material only cited the Petitioner's work, rather than being 'about' her, and lacked substantial discussion (criterion iii). The patent and 40+ citations were not shown to be of 'major significance' due to lack of commercialization evidence, contextual comparison, or demonstration of actual impact since 2014 (criterion v). Finally, the Petitioner's various roles were not established as 'leading or critical' for organizations with a 'distinguished reputation' (criterion viii).

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish a one-time internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. Specifically, criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards (i) and published material in major media (iii) were not met. The Petitioner's submitted awards were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized, and the published materials (YouTube/Instagram links, self-promotional content, and AI-translated interviews) were not from major media or lacked proper certification. The AAO did not evaluate criteria (v) and (viii) as it was unnecessary.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the visual arts field. While she received about a half dozen awards (2010-2019), mostly government-sponsored or youth-based, and had limited media coverage (about one article per year from 2013-2023), these were not indicative of the upper echelon. Her membership with the Union Designers of Armenia, judging three exhibitions (2015-2016), and displaying work in various venues did not distinguish her or garner widespread acclaim consistent with the high standard for extraordinary ability. Her participation in construction projects also did not result in widespread acclaim or significant attention.

The Petitioner's awards (Best Actress 2012 and Honored Artist 2011) were received several years before filing and did not demonstrate continuing acclaim. Her film and TV roles were primarily supporting, and media coverage was largely in publications with limited reach. The judging experience involved children's competitions, which did not reflect the high level of expertise required for the classification.

The Petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria; specifically, reference letters lacked detail on how his work influenced the field (original contributions), and YouTube metrics were deemed insufficient or post-dated the filing (commercial success). The record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is in the small percentage at the top of the field.