All Cases

The Petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three criteria. Specifically, the honorary doctorate was not from a recognized institution, published materials lacked substantial discussion or author credits, original contributions (like the 'I-Mark' patent) were never actually registered or implemented, and salary evidence was inconsistent and from a different field (procurement).

The motions were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Specific reasons included: the Summit Creative Award was given to the company, not the individual; published materials about the Petitioner lacked complete translations and did not pertain to his field; judging roles were everyday business decisions, not formal judging; original contributions lacked major significance; membership in associations was for an ad hoc panel, not a permanent association; scholarly articles were a speech, not a published article; and artistic exhibitions were not shown to be in the field of media and communication. The Petitioner only met one of the required three evidentiary criteria.

The petitioner's student award lacked national or international recognition, as it was not widely known outside the issuing institution and did not generate awareness in the field. Her master's thesis, while showing promise, was deemed to have only prospective, not current, major significance to the field. The petitioner conceded three other criteria (memberships, judging, exhibitions), and since she could not numerically meet the required three criteria, the AAO did not evaluate the remaining two.

The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the membership in associations criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) because her 'Platinum Creator' status was based on a points system and subjective factors like 'mystery, swagger, and confidence,' not outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. For the commercial successes criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)), the Petitioner's $3,257,612 profit from her LLC was deemed remuneration for her work as a social media influencer, not evidence of high sales or receipts comparable to commercial success in the performing arts. The AAO also noted that prior O-1 nonimmigrant status does not guarantee approval for an I-140 petition.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. The RGD membership was found to reflect professional competence rather than outstanding achievement, and the submitted articles (e.g., Business Insider, Aviation Week) lacked sufficient context to be classified as major trade or professional media. Consequently, the Petitioner did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only satisfied one of the ten criteria (judging). The awards were received by her employer (BAPRA Bright Awards), memberships did not require 'outstanding achievements' (BPRA, Music Biz, PRCA), and published materials lacked required author information or were not specifically about the Petitioner.

The Petitioner failed to meet the membership criterion as EMCOAN's constitution allows any content owner to join without proving outstanding achievements. The high remuneration criterion was not met because bank statements were inconsistent and did not distinguish salary from other income, and the salary surveys provided were contradictory. The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field.