All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner only met two criteria: receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (i) and participating as a judge of the work of others (iv). The AAO found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence for membership in associations (ii), published materials about her (iii), original contributions of major significance (v), performing in leading or critical roles (viii), or commanding a high salary (ix). The evidence for published material (YouTube videos) lacked proof of major media status, and salary data was not comparable or contemporaneous.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner met only one criterion (leading/critical role) instead of the required three. He failed to provide evidence of original contributions of major significance, and his work as a referee was not considered comparable to an artistic exhibition. Additionally, evidence regarding memberships and judging roles lacked sufficient detail and corroboration.