This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal after withdrawing two of the Director's four favorable criterion findings (awards and published material), leaving the petitioner with only two criteria satisfied instead of the required three. Because the petitioner could not meet the initial evidentiary threshold, no final merits determination was conducted.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a musician specializing in the Venezuelan cuatro, filed an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition claiming six evidentiary criteria. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition at the final merits stage after granting four criteria. On appeal, the AAO conducted de novo review and withdrew the Director's favorable findings on both the lesser awards criterion (due to lack of primary award documentation and unproven national/international recognition) and the published material criterion (due to deficiencies across all six submitted items including an unverifiable Billboard article, missing authors and translations, and inadequate circulation comparisons). With only two criteria confirmed, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination. The AAO also noted in its advisory comments that two awards over nearly two decades, lacking adequate recognition, do not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.
What worked: The judging criterion and leading/critical role criterion were found by the Director to be met and were not withdrawn by the AAO (though reserved as moot). The petitioner's active performance career, including work on an O-1 nonimmigrant visa, was acknowledged.
What failed: The awards criterion failed because the petitioner submitted only a testimonial letter rather than primary documentation of the awards, and provided no evidence that his specific awards received national or international attention. The published material criterion failed across all six submissions: the Billboard article could not be verified, articles lacked required authors and certified translations, circulation statistics were either missing or not compared to similar publications, an event advertisement was not considered 'published material,' and YouTube/Vive TV availability did not establish major media status.
Takeaway: Petitioners must submit primary documentary proof of each award (certificates, official letters from the issuing body) alongside evidence — such as national or international media coverage — that the specific award itself is widely recognized in the field. For published material, every submission must include the title, date, and author; foreign-language material requires certified translations; and media status must be demonstrated with comparative circulation data rather than raw visitor numbers alone.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The judging criterion and leading/critical role criterion were found by the Director to be met and were not withdrawn by the AAO (though reserved as moot)
- The petitioner's active performance career, including work on an O-1 nonimmigrant visa, was acknowledged.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The awards criterion failed because the petitioner submitted only a testimonial letter rather than primary documentation of the awards, and provided no evidence that his specific awards received national or international attention
- The published material criterion failed across all six submissions: the Billboard article could not be verified, articles lacked required authors and certified translations, circulation statistics were either missing or not compared to similar publications, an event advertisement was not considered 'published material,' and YouTube/Vive TV availability did not establish major media status.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Reversed in their favorDirector found criterion met; AAO withdrew favorable determination. Awards lacked documentary proof of receipt and national/international recognition was not established for the specific awards.
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorDirector found criterion met; AAO withdrew. All six pieces of evidence failed: Billboard article unverifiable, Iberoeconomia lacked author/certified translation, Factores de Poder circulation data illegible, El Universal ad was an announcement not published material, Vive TV lacked viewership comparisons, and YouTube availability does not constitute major media.
Judging the work of others
Not metDirector found criterion met; AAO reserved decision as moot because petitioner could not numerically reach three criteria anyway.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Not metPetitioner initially claimed this criterion but abandoned it on appeal.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metDirector found criterion met; AAO reserved decision as moot because petitioner could not numerically reach three criteria anyway.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner initially claimed this criterion but abandoned it on appeal.
Judging criterion: Director's finding left standing (reserved, not withdrawn)
Leading or critical role criterion: Director's finding left standing (reserved, not withdrawn)
Testimonial letter claiming petitioner received named awards — secondary evidence not corroborated by primary award documentation
Billboard Venezuela Magazine article — copied into Word document, URL unverifiable, translation incomplete and missing title/date/author
Iberoeconomia Espana en positivo article — missing author, no certified translation, insufficient comparative circulation data (88,000 monthly visits with no comparator)
Factores de Poder articles — illegible circulation/category data, could not demonstrate major media status
El Universal newspaper advertisement — classified as an event announcement, not published material; lacked author
Vive TV interview — no original Spanish transcript, no certified translation, no viewership comparison data to establish major media
YouTube link to Vive TV interview — internet accessibility alone does not establish major media status
Director improperly found the lesser awards criterion met despite absence of primary documentary evidence of the awards and lack of evidence of national/international recognition for the specific awards
Director improperly found the published material criterion met despite multiple deficiencies: unverifiable Billboard article, missing authors, lack of certified translations, no comparative circulation data, and YouTube availability treated as insufficient for major media qualification
Completed
I-140 filed
Musician specializing in the Venezuelan cuatro, a traditional Latin American stringed instrument; also works in advertising and live performance
Completed
Texas Service Center Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-12-23
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal after withdrawing two of the Director's four favorable criterion findings (awards and published material), leaving the petitioner with only two criteria satisfied instead of the required three. Because the petitioner could not meet the initial evidentiary threshold, no final merits determination was conducted.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee