All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only met two of the ten required criteria (judging and exhibitions), failing to reach the minimum of three. Specifically, the awards were from his youth as a dancer rather than as a choreographer, the memberships did not require 'outstanding achievements' as judged by experts, and the training manual lacked evidence of 'major significance' beyond his own employer. Additionally, the salary comparison to 'choreographers' was insufficient for his 'Head Coach' role, and his role at the dance school was not proven to be leading or critical.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not submit new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed as the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior AAO decision (November 2024) was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner did not identify specific errors regarding the 'published material' (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) and 'commercial success' (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)) criteria, nor did they show error in reserving the totality of the evidence analysis.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the new evidence did not establish eligibility under at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner failed to prove membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements due to inconsistent documentation and lack of bylaws, published material in major media due to insufficient evidence of circulation or audience, and original contributions of major significance due to vague recommendation letters lacking specific details on the impact of contributions. The motion to reconsider was dismissed as the Petitioner did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision, nor did she identify specific errors or explain how the prior decision did not follow regulations and policy guidance.

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.

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 motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to submit new, determinative evidence that the awards had national or international recognition, with some evidence being dated after the filing date. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, merely disagreeing with the conclusions. The Petitioner's participation in an artistic performance show was not considered a competition awarding prizes, and photos of participation did not prove the requisite recognition of awards.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, nor did he satisfy at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria. While the Petitioner met the published material and leading or critical role criteria, he failed to prove the awards criterion (his 'Best Original Song' award lacked national/international significance) and the display criterion (his musical compositions were heard, not seen or displayed, in films).

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that her awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in acting, that her association memberships required outstanding achievements as judged by experts, that published materials about her were in major media, that her contributions were original and of major significance, or that her salary was high relative to others in the field. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that they met the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) and participation as a judge of the work of others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)). For awards, the evidence presented was deemed regional, local, or employer-based, lacking national or international recognition. For judging, the evidence consisted of a vague letter and an inconsistent website printout, failing to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Even if the Petitioner had met the other two claimed criteria (published material and artistic exhibitions), they would still not have met the minimum three criteria required.