This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory evidentiary criteria. Key evidence was rendered non-probative due to incomplete translations, and the petitioner could not demonstrate a leading/critical role or commercial success.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a makeup artist and stylist, sought an EB-1A immigrant visa based on extraordinary ability in the arts. The Texas Service Center director denied the petition, finding the petitioner had not met the required three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO reversed the director's favorable findings on two criteria: published material (criterion iii) was undermined by incomplete translations that violated 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), and the leading/critical role claim (criterion viii) was undermined by conflicting letters providing different job titles and insufficient proof of distinguished organizational reputation. The petitioner's claim of commercial success as comparable evidence also failed for lack of supporting financial documentation. Without meeting even one criterion, the petition did not clear the initial evidentiary threshold and the appeal was dismissed.
What failed: 1. Foreign-language documents were submitted with incomplete translations lacking proper certification, stripping them of all evidentiary weight. 2. Two letters from the same date contradicted each other on the petitioner's job title, and no independent evidence resolved the inconsistency. 3. Claims of commercial success relied entirely on conclusory letters without any supporting financial records, sales data, or other objective documentation.
Takeaway: Always submit complete, certified translations for every foreign-language document, with the translator explicitly affirming completeness and accuracy for each specific document. When claiming a leading role or commercial success, corroborate every assertion with independent, objective evidence such as organizational charts, contracts, or audited financial statements — conclusory letters from associates or clients will not suffice.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Foreign-language documents were submitted with incomplete translations lacking proper certification, stripping them of all evidentiary weight
- Two letters from the same date contradicted each other on the petitioner's job title, and no independent evidence resolved the inconsistency
- Claims of commercial success relied entirely on conclusory letters without any supporting financial records, sales data, or other objective documentation.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorDirector found criterion met, but AAO reversed because submitted English translations were incomplete and did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), leaving the underlying foreign-language evidence without probative value.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorDirector found criterion met, but AAO reversed because two letters from the same date provided conflicting job titles (Director of Training vs. Director of Entertainment), the resume listed yet another title, and neither the employer organization nor petitioner's own company demonstrated a distinguished reputation through independent evidence.
Commercial successes in the performing arts
Not metPetitioner claimed this criterion and/or comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). AAO found makeup artist/stylist is not in the performing arts, and no evidence comparable to box office receipts or sales figures was submitted; only conclusory letters without supporting financial documentation.
Foreign-language documents with incomplete English translations lacking translator certification of completeness, including magazine articles and advertisements.
Two conflicting letters from the same date giving different job titles for petitioner's role at the cosmetics company.
Self-promotional evidence regarding the organization's reputation not supported by independent corroboration.
Letters from clients of petitioner's company stating satisfaction, insufficient to show distinguished reputation.
Conclusory letters claiming commercial success without supporting financial statements, revenue figures, or box office/sales data.
Overall company sales charts that did not isolate sales attributable to petitioner's specific products or campaigns.
Business partner letter citing 40% annual revenue increase without actual revenue or profit figures.
Director incorrectly found criterion iii (published material) met despite translations that did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) — translations were incomplete and the translator certificate did not affirm completeness.
Director incorrectly found criterion viii (leading or critical role) met despite internally inconsistent letters and insufficient evidence of distinguished organizational reputation.
Completed
I-140 filed
Makeup artist and stylist
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.
2015-06-01
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory evidentiary criteria. Key evidence was rendered non-probative due to incomplete translations, and the petitioner could not demonstrate a leading/critical role or commercial success.
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