This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO denied the joint motion to reopen and reconsider, finding the petitioner still met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging and display) and had not established sustained national or international acclaim.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a musician and music teacher, sought EB-1A classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. After the Director denied the petition and the AAO dismissed the appeal, he filed a joint motion to reopen and reconsider, claiming he met four additional criteria. The AAO found that the motion to reconsider failed because no legal errors were identified in the prior decision, and the motion to reopen failed because the new evidence still did not establish that his 1981 competition prize was nationally or internationally recognized, and the submitted articles were not 'about the alien' as required by the published material criterion. With only two of the required three criteria met, the petition remained denied and the petitioner's extraordinary ability claim was not established.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established the judging criterion and the artistic display criterion, both of which were previously found met and were not disturbed on motion. A 2017 letter from a school official was sufficient to confirm that the petitioner actually received the 1981 competition prize.
What failed: The petitioner could not show the 1981 competition prize was nationally or internationally recognized (no evidence of competitor pool or field attention). The six submitted articles about performances were not 'about the alien' as required, were missing date and author information, and were not shown to be from major media. Claims about the organization's distinguished reputation rested only on the petitioner's own assertions, which were insufficient. The petitioner refused to produce commercial success documents, fatally undermining that criterion.
Takeaway: Petitioners must submit third-party evidence — not just their own assertions — to establish the prestige of awards and organizations. Articles must be demonstrably 'about the alien,' not merely mention them in passing, and must include complete citation information (title, date, and author).
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 established the judging criterion and the artistic display criterion, both of which were previously found met and were not disturbed on motion
- A 2017 letter from a school official was sufficient to confirm that the petitioner actually received the 1981 competition prize.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner could not show the 1981 competition prize was nationally or internationally recognized (no evidence of competitor pool or field attention)
- The six submitted articles about performances were not 'about the alien' as required, were missing date and author information, and were not shown to be from major media
- Claims about the organization's distinguished reputation rested only on the petitioner's own assertions, which were insufficient
- The petitioner refused to produce commercial success documents, fatally undermining that criterion.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metPetitioner demonstrated receipt of a 1981 third prize at a competition in Netherlands, but failed to establish the award was nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field; insufficient evidence of the pool of competitors or field attention.
Published material about the person
Not metSix submitted articles discussed music performances and only mentioned the petitioner in passing; articles were not 'about the alien' as required, sources not shown to be major media, and date/author information missing for each piece.
Judging the work of others
MetPreviously found met by the AAO in the appellate decision; not disturbed on motion.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
MetPreviously found met by the AAO in the appellate decision; not disturbed on motion.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner claimed concertmaster role from 1989–1996, but failed to establish the organization had a distinguished reputation; petitioner's own assertions were insufficient.
Commercial successes in the performing arts
Not metPetitioner claimed employment wages from 1986–2011 showed sustained commercial success, but did not provide box office receipts or sales materials and explicitly refused to disclose corresponding documents.
May 2017 letter from assistant principal of German school confirming petitioner received a prize at the 1981 competition in Netherlands with a monetary award equivalent to $2,500 USD — sufficient to demonstrate receipt of the award, though not its national/international recognition
Judging criterion previously found met (not disturbed on motion)
Display criterion previously found met (not disturbed on motion)
Six German-language articles about church concerts — discussed performances and only mentioned petitioner in passing, not 'about the alien' as required; sources not shown to be major media; missing date and author information
1994 letter from lecturer regarding concertmaster role — failed to establish the organization had a distinguished reputation
Employment wages from 1986–2011 as evidence of commercial success — no box office receipts or sales materials provided; petitioner refused to disclose relevant documents
Prior jury reports from 1981 competition — did not name the petitioner as a recipient and did not show national/international recognition of the award
Petitioner's assertions about the organization's distinguished reputation based on location in a historic academic city — insufficient to establish the organization's distinguished reputation
Completed
I-140 filed
Musician and music teacher, including work as a concertmaster and conductor of church concerts
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2017-11-06
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO denied the joint motion to reopen and reconsider, finding the petitioner still met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging and display) and had not established sustained national or international acclaim.
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