FEB082023_01B2203Decided 2023-02-08I-140

A Brazilian photographer's EB-1A petition was dismissed after the AAO found he met only two of the required three…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-1AField: photography and digital marketingOrigin: Brazil
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two criteria (published material and artistic display), falling short of the three required.

2 / 3 criteria needed Need 1 more

1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.

In plain English

A Brazilian photographer and digital marketing agency owner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, intending to continue work as a Director of Photography in the United States. The Texas Service Center denied the petition, and the AAO dismissed the appeal. The AAO agreed with the Director that published material about the petitioner satisfied one criterion, and reversed the Director's denial of the artistic display criterion based on exhibition photographs and a marketing flyer. However, the petitioner failed to establish that his businesses had a distinguished reputation (leading role criterion), could not link his reported income to his work as a photographer (high salary criterion), and could not claim commercial success in the performing arts based solely on his production work for successful musical artists. With only two of the required three criteria met, the AAO did not reach a final merits determination but noted the record would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim in any event.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The AAO reversed the Director and credited the petitioner's evidence of an artistic exhibition display, accepting photographs and a marketing flyer as sufficient proof. Major media coverage about the petitioner also satisfied the published material criterion.

What failed: Client testimonial letters praised the petitioner personally but did not establish that his companies had a distinguished reputation, which is required for the leading role criterion. The income tax return was filed as a business owner/manager, not as a Director of Photography, so the AAO could not compare his pay to others in that role. Evidence of commercially successful music videos could not be attributed to the petitioner as a performing artist in his own right.

Takeaway: Business owners in creative fields must carefully separate and document their personal compensation as a practitioner (e.g., as a photographer) from their income as a company owner, and must submit independent evidence of their companies' reputations rather than relying solely on client praise of their individual work. When appealing a denial, every criterion raised below must be explicitly addressed or it will be treated as abandoned.

For RFE responses & petition building

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 AAO reversed the Director and credited the petitioner's evidence of an artistic exhibition display, accepting photographs and a marketing flyer as sufficient proof
  • Major media coverage about the petitioner also satisfied the published material criterion.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • Client testimonial letters praised the petitioner personally but did not establish that his companies had a distinguished reputation, which is required for the leading role criterion
  • The income tax return was filed as a business owner/manager, not as a Director of Photography, so the AAO could not compare his pay to others in that role
  • Evidence of commercially successful music videos could not be attributed to the petitioner as a performing artist in his own right.
Find more EB-1A cases with similar evidence patterns →
What the evidence showed

Criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement

Not met

Petitioner is a member of Professional Photographers of America but failed to show membership requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Issue considered abandoned on appeal as petitioner did not address it.

Published material about the person

Met

Both the Director and AAO agreed that major media has published material about the petitioner. Criterion met.

Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases

Reversed in their favor

AAO reversed the Director's denial. Photographs of the petitioner with displayed work and a marketing flyer for a 2008 photographic exhibition were found sufficient to demonstrate display of work at an artistic exhibition.

Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations

Not met

Petitioner established a leading role at his own companies but failed to demonstrate those companies have a distinguished reputation. Client testimonial letters and articles focused on petitioner's personal work, not the businesses' reputations.

High salary or other significantly high remuneration

Not met

The 2018 Brazil income tax return reflected income as a company owner/manager, not as a Director of Photography. Petitioner could not connect the reported income to his work in the field of endeavor, making comparison with wage data impossible.

Commercial successes in the performing arts

Not met

Petitioner's involvement in direction, photography, and production of commercially successful music videos is not the same as the petitioner's own commercial success as a performing artist. Issue also considered partially abandoned as petitioner did not directly address the Director's reasoning on appeal.

Evidence that persuaded the AAO

Photographs of petitioner with his photography displayed at a 2008 photographic exhibition event

Marketing flyer stating the event was a photographic exhibition of the petitioner's work

Major media publications containing material about the petitioner

Client testimonial letters confirming the petitioner's photography and artistic contributions to their careers

Where the evidence fell short

Professional Photographers of America membership — no evidence it requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts

Client testimonial letters — addressed petitioner's personal work and talent but did not speak to the distinguished reputation of his businesses

Metropoles and Cartao de Visita articles — focused on petitioner's personal history and achievements, not the businesses' reputations; Cartao de Visita article appeared to be a marketing/PR piece mirroring the business website

2018 Brazil individual income tax return — showed income as company owner/manager, not as Director of Photography, making salary comparison impossible

Evidence of commercially successful music videos (billions of views, iTunes/album sales) — attributed to client performing artist, not to the petitioner as a performing artist in his own right

Officer errors the AAO found

Director found artistic display criterion unmet based solely on marketing material without considering photographs showing the petitioner with displayed work at the exhibition venue.

Director listed evidence for the leading or critical role criterion but did not analyze why it failed to meet the elements of the criterion.

Director incorrectly characterized the petitioner's individual income tax return as a business tax return.

How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Photographer and Director of Photography; owner of a photography business and digital marketing agency in Brazil

Completed

Texas Service Center — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2023-02-08

AAO decision — Dismissed

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. The petitioner met only two criteria (published material and artistic display), falling short of the three required.

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
Authorities the office relied on
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)8 C.F.R. § 103.3
ChawathePetitioner bears burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence; truth determined by quality not quantity of evidence
Christa'sAAO reviews questions de novo
KazarianEstablishes two-step review: first count qualifying criteria, then conduct final merits determination on totality of evidence
VisinscaiaExtraordinary ability designation is extremely restrictive by design
RijalSupports Kazarian two-step analysis framework
R-A-M-Failure to appeal or address an issue on appeal constitutes waiver/abandonment of that issue
SepulvedaClaims not raised on appeal are waived
HristovClaims not raised on appeal are considered abandoned
PriceEven major league level athletes do not automatically meet the extraordinary ability standard; salary comparisons must be made to others in the same position
SkokosSalary information for those performing lesser duties is not a valid comparison to others in the field
GrimsonSalary comparisons should be made to others in comparable positions
MuniSalary comparisons should be made to others in comparable positions
Hamal IIEB-1 visas are reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants
Hamal IEven highly accomplished individuals fail to win the extraordinary ability designation