FEB132024_02B2203Decided 2024-02-13I-140

An Argentine large-scale muralist's EB-1A petition was remanded after the AAO found the Director wrongly rejected his…

Remanded Useful for: appeal strategy
EB-1AField: visual artist who specializes in creating large-scale muralsOrigin: Argentina
The outcome

Good news — this case cleared the first bar

The AAO withdrew the Director's denial after finding the petitioner met the published materials criterion (iii) in addition to the two criteria already found met, bringing the total to three. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination.

3 / 3 criteria needed Threshold cleared ✓

Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.

In plain English

A visual artist from Argentina specializing in large-scale murals appealed the denial of his EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. The Texas Service Center Director had found only two of the required three criteria met, rejecting the published materials criterion due to allegedly insufficient translations and lack of circulation data. The AAO reversed on that criterion, finding that the translations satisfied regulatory requirements and that independent third-party readership data — including from a federally funded press-freedom organization — adequately demonstrated the Argentine publications were major media. With three criteria now satisfied (published materials, artistic display, and leading/critical role), the AAO remanded for a full final merits determination on whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim at the top of his field.

What worked & what failed

What worked: Readership and circulation data from independent third-party organizations, including a federally funded press-freedom monitor, successfully demonstrated that Argentine publications covering the petitioner's mural work qualify as major media. Evidence of the petitioner's display of work at exhibitions and his leading/critical role for distinguished organizations was accepted without dispute by the Director and affirmed on appeal.

What failed: One foreign-language article was disqualified because it was not about the petitioner or his work, failing the plain-language requirement of the published materials criterion. The high-salary criterion was not contested on appeal and was therefore waived.

Takeaway: When relying on foreign-language media coverage, ensure all translations are certified and complete, and support claims of 'major media' with verifiable third-party circulation or readership data — independent sources such as press-monitoring organizations can be decisive. Waiving uncontested criteria on appeal is permissible but forecloses any chance of later raising them.

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

  • Readership and circulation data from independent third-party organizations, including a federally funded press-freedom monitor, successfully demonstrated that Argentine publications covering the petitioner's mural work qualify as major media
  • Evidence of the petitioner's display of work at exhibitions and his leading/critical role for distinguished organizations was accepted without dispute by the Director and affirmed on appeal.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • One foreign-language article was disqualified because it was not about the petitioner or his work, failing the plain-language requirement of the published materials criterion
  • The high-salary criterion was not contested on appeal and was therefore waived.
Find more EB-1A cases with similar evidence patterns →
What the evidence showed

Criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Published material about the person

Reversed in their favor

AAO reversed the Director's finding; concluded that English translations were adequate under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and that circulation/readership data from independent third-party sources sufficiently established the publications as major media recognized nationally in Argentina, including outlets operated by a major media conglomerate.

Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases

Met

Director found this criterion met; AAO affirmed — display of work at exhibitions or showcases.

Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations

Met

Director found this criterion met; AAO affirmed — leading or critical role for organizations of distinguished reputation.

High salary or other significantly high remuneration

Not met

Petitioner expressly waived this criterion on appeal; not contested.

Evidence that persuaded the AAO

Articles interviewing the petitioner or discussing his work in Argentine publications (C-, P-, and I-)

Circulation and readership data from independent data collection and consolidation companies and a business collaboration platform

Evidence from a federally funded organization promoting freedom of the press that monitors media platforms worldwide

Evidence that several publications are operated by G-C-, described as a major media conglomerate

Where the evidence fell short

One foreign-language article that was not about the petitioner or his work (failed plain-language requirement of criterion iii)

High-salary criterion evidence — petitioner did not contest the Director's denial of criterion ix on appeal

Officer errors the AAO found

Director incorrectly determined that the English translations of foreign-language articles were insufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) when in fact they complied with regulatory requirements.

Director incorrectly found that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient circulation/readership data to establish the publications as professional or major trade publications or major media, disregarding third-party data from independent sources including a federally funded press-freedom organization.

How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Visual artist specializing in large-scale murals

Completed

Director, Texas Service Center — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

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

2024-02-13

AAO decision — Remanded

The AAO withdrew the Director's denial after finding the petitioner met the published materials criterion (iii) in addition to the two criteria already found met, bringing the total to three. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination.

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)(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. § 103.2(b)(3)8 C.F.R. § 103.38 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)
ChawatheEstablishes that the petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Christo'sEstablishes that the AAO reviews questions of law and fact de novo.
KazarianEstablishes the two-step review framework: first count qualifying criteria, then conduct a final merits determination assessing sustained national or international acclaim.
VisinscaiaSupports the Kazarian two-step analytical framework.
RijalSupports the Kazarian two-step analytical framework.
O-R-E-Issues not raised on appeal are considered waived.
R-A-M-Issues not raised on appeal are considered waived.