This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed primarily as abandoned after the petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's RFE. In the alternative, it was dismissed on the merits because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (leading/critical role) and failed to provide sufficient comparable evidence.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a skilled reed voicer in the pipe organ building field, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The Texas Service Center director denied the petition for failing to meet at least three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO found the petitioner's field to be pipe organ building broadly and issued an RFE requesting comparable evidence and additional documentation, but the petitioner never responded. The AAO dismissed the appeal as abandoned and, alternatively, on the merits — finding only the leading/critical role criterion met (criterion viii), while the original contributions (criterion v) and comparable evidence arguments for artistic display (criterion vii) both fell short. Because the petitioner failed to clear the threshold of three criteria, the AAO did not proceed to a final merits determination on sustained acclaim.
What worked: The petitioner successfully demonstrated a leading and critical role for a distinguished pipe organ building company, supported by statements from company leadership confirming he was trusted with reed voicing on nearly all organs produced over more than a decade.
What failed: Reference letters praising the petitioner's talent and training failed to establish original contributions of major significance because they did not identify specific contributions or explain how those contributions impacted the field. Evidence of organ performances and inauguration events did not credit the petitioner by name, making it insufficient to serve as comparable evidence to artistic display. Crucially, the petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's RFE, forfeiting the opportunity to develop key arguments.
Takeaway: Always respond to an AAO RFE — failure to respond results in automatic dismissal for abandonment regardless of the merits. When relying on comparable evidence or the original contributions criterion, petitioners should submit detailed, specific documentation (e.g., technical reports, contemporaneous records) showing exactly what was done and how it impacted the broader field, rather than relying solely on general praise letters.
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 petitioner successfully demonstrated a leading and critical role for a distinguished pipe organ building company, supported by statements from company leadership confirming he was trusted with reed voicing on nearly all organs produced over more than a decade.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Reference letters praising the petitioner's talent and training failed to establish original contributions of major significance because they did not identify specific contributions or explain how those contributions impacted the field
- Evidence of organ performances and inauguration events did not credit the petitioner by name, making it insufficient to serve as comparable evidence to artistic display
- Crucially, the petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's RFE, forfeiting the opportunity to develop key arguments.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Original contributions of major significance
Not metReference letters praised the petitioner's talent but did not identify specific original contributions of major significance. A potential contribution related to resolving a temperature fluctuation issue on a South Korea organ installation was noted, but petitioner failed to respond to RFE seeking supporting evidence.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Not metPetitioner argued organ inauguration events and musical performances constituted comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), but none of the evidence credited the petitioner by name. AAO found this insufficient and petitioner did not respond to the RFE requesting further development of comparable evidence argument.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetAAO found petitioner satisfied this criterion based on evidence that he played a critical role in reed voicing for virtually all organs produced by his employer over 8-12 years, and that the employer has a distinguished reputation as one of America's most admired organ building companies.
Testimony from senior executive that petitioner was entrusted with reed voicing on almost every organ produced over eight years
Statement from Chairman Emeritus that petitioner's reed voicing was crucial to company's distinctive sound over 12 years
Evidence that employer has a distinguished reputation as one of America's most admired organ building companies
Curator/lecturer describing employer's organs as universally admired with highest esteem for workmanship
Reference letters praising petitioner's talent but not identifying specific original contributions of major significance in the field
Evidence of organ inauguration events and musical performances that did not credit the petitioner by name
Broadcast and recorded performances of organs petitioner worked on, none of which mentioned petitioner
General letters from colleagues describing training and value to employer without specific examples of field-wide contributions
Completed
I-140 filed
Reed voicer specializing in pipe organ building and tonal finishing
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.
2015-06-18
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed primarily as abandoned after the petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's RFE. In the alternative, it was dismissed on the merits because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (leading/critical role) and failed to provide sufficient comparable evidence.
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