This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Director that although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination. The AAO also rejected the petitioner's argument that meeting three criteria alone is sufficient for approval.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a Chinese film and television actress, sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The Director denied the petition after finding that, while three evidentiary criteria were met (awards, published material, commercial success), the petitioner failed the final merits determination. On appeal, the petitioner argued incorrectly that meeting three criteria automatically entitled her to approval, misreading Kazarian. The AAO clarified that Kazarian requires a two-step analysis and affirmed the Director's final merits determination, finding that awards received mostly a decade before filing, media coverage limited to China, and a single commercial film success did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of her field.
What failed: Awards were mostly 8-10 years old at time of filing, undermining any showing of sustained acclaim. Media coverage was limited to China and not supported by independent evidence of major media status. Commercial success of one film was not linked to personal recognition of the petitioner within the industry.
Takeaway: Petitioners in the arts must show that their acclaim is both current and sustained — old awards and past media coverage are insufficient without evidence of ongoing recognition at the top of the field. Meeting the three-criteria threshold is only the first step; the totality of the record must demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
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
- Awards were mostly 8-10 years old at time of filing, undermining any showing of sustained acclaim
- Media coverage was limited to China and not supported by independent evidence of major media status
- Commercial success of one film was not linked to personal recognition of the petitioner within the industry.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding. Awards were from approximately 10 years prior to filing and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim.
Published material about the person
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding but noted lack of major media coverage outside China and insufficient corroboration of publication quality.
Judging the work of others
Not metPetitioner served as juror for a Youth Film Festival in 2017 but did not establish this placed her at the top of her field or reflected sustained national acclaim.
Commercial successes in the performing arts
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding but noted petitioner failed to show how commercial success of one 2018 film set her apart from other actors.
Completed
I-140 filed
Actress working in Chinese film and television
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-06-01
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Director that although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination. The AAO also rejected the petitioner's argument that meeting three criteria alone is sufficient for approval.
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.