All Cases

The Petitioner did not meet the artistic exhibition criterion as news agency websites and educational journalism awards are not artistic in nature. The leading or critical role criterion was not met because his duties as a video coordinator were considered standard production tasks rather than leadership, and his current employer lacked a distinguished reputation. No major award or three lesser criteria were satisfied to progress to a final merits determination.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements, establishing only one of the ten criteria (leading or critical role) instead of the required three. Specific criteria like awards, memberships, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, exhibitions, and high salary were not met due to issues such as awards given to the employer, job duties not qualifying as judging, lack of full English translations for articles, contributions not proven to be of major significance, and insufficient comparative wage data for the high salary claim. The AAO concluded the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, published materials about the Petitioner did not relate to his work or were not in major media. Judging roles involved evaluating cars, not the work of other journalists. Original contributions (a book and articles) lacked documented major significance in journalism, with only 1,000 copies printed for the book. High salary claims were not substantiated with comparative data for total remuneration of similarly employed journalists, despite a base salary of R$ 3075.71 and total monthly payments ranging from R$ 7025 to R$ 8786.

The Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the YouTube Silver Creator Award was not recognized for excellence in the field, memberships in LGBT organizations were not in the specific field of blogging, and the judging activity occurred after the filing date. Additionally, her salary was above average but not 'high' relative to the top of the field, and evidence of original contributions lacked proof of major significance.

The Petitioner did not meet the minimum requirement of satisfying at least three EB-1A criteria, which precluded a final merits determination. The motion to reconsider was dismissed as it broadly disagreed with prior conclusions without identifying specific legal errors, and the motion to reopen was dismissed for failing to provide new facts or documentary evidence.