All Cases

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the discussed criteria: awards (lack of evidence for national/international recognition), memberships (APT membership does not require outstanding achievements judged by experts), and judging (failed to prove actual participation or that hiring duties constituted judging the work of others). No specific citation or publication counts were validated as meeting the standards. The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not satisfy the minimum of three criteria.

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the 10 EB-1A criteria upon de novo review. Specifically, memberships did not require outstanding achievements, published materials were promotional or lacked circulation data, and displays were commercial trade shows rather than artistic exhibitions. Additionally, the final merits review found that 7 million Google Street View hits and local client letters did not constitute sustained national acclaim.

The Petitioner won over a dozen awards between 2016-2021 and published two books, but failed to show their industry impact (e.g., only 104 copies sold). While he judged six competitions, the record lacked specific selection criteria to prove he was at the top of the field. Media coverage was found to be general event promotion rather than coverage of the Petitioner's specific extraordinary achievements.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time internationally recognized award or meet three of the ten regulatory criteria. While two criteria were met (judging and artistic exhibitions), the published material criterion was not satisfied due to insufficient evidence of major media status and illegible comparative data for 'Il Fatto Quotidiano'. The leading/critical role criterion was also not met due to a lack of corroborating evidence for the distinguished reputation of the projects.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to contest the Director's finding of material misrepresentation, which served as an independent ground for denial. Additionally, the record did not establish that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found that finalist selections for awards do not constitute 'receipt of awards' and lacked national/international recognition. Membership in associations was not proven to require outstanding achievements judged by experts. Published materials were not in 'major media' (Wikipedia deemed unreliable) or did not relate to his specific work. Displayed work at exhibitions was that of artisans, not the Petitioner's own work. Only the 'judging' criterion was met.

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 motion to reopen was dismissed for failing to state new facts and submit documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate an error in law or policy regarding the scholarly articles criterion (which was not claimed in the initial petition or RFE response) and the awards criterion (due to insufficient documentation demonstrating national or international recognition for excellence in the field, including details on selection process, number of entrants, and external recognition of the award itself).

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of demonstrating a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, published material was not from major media, original contributions lacked major significance, displays were not artistic exhibitions of work product, a lead role was not specified, and commercial success lacked documentation of actual revenues despite high follower/view counts.