All Cases
3 cases · 0 approved / sustained · 2 denied / dismissed · 1 remanded
Musician
Performing Arts · Peru
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-02-07
The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate error in the prior decision. Specifically, the published material criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) was not met due to lack of author credit, insufficient proof of 'major publication' status for Caretas, and the Bloom Tampa Bay article post-dated the filing. The leading or critical role criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)) was not met as support letters attested to quality, not a leading or critical role. The artistic display criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)) was not claimed before the Director's denial. Overall, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Civil Engineer
Engineering · Peru
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-09-10
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner only demonstrated meeting two of the required three criteria (judging and scholarly articles). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reversed the Director's finding on the awards criterion, concluding that the Petitioner did receive a nationally recognized award (the medal from the National Council of the _________ in 2022 for outstanding professional work in engineering in Peru). With three criteria now met (awards, judging, and scholarly articles), the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case for a final merits determination, as the Director had not reached this stage of evaluation.
Musician
Performing Arts · Peru
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Florida 2024-08-14
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the 'Published material' criterion was not met due to lack of circulation data, author credit, and submission of post-filing evidence. The 'Leading or critical role' criterion was not met as letters did not explicitly state or explain how the petitioner's roles were leading or critical for distinguished organizations, and some evidence was post-filing. The Petitioner waived appeal for 'High remuneration' and 'Commercial success'. The AAO concluded the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is at the very top of the field.