This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO also reversed the Director's finding that the published material criterion was satisfied.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A Brazilian social media content creator sought EB-1A classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition but credited one criterion (published material). On appeal, the AAO reversed that favorable finding, concluding that the Brazilian Times, a hometown Brazilian newspaper, and a regional Catholic TV channel did not qualify as major media. The AAO also clarified that acting in video sketches constitutes performing arts for purposes of the commercial success criterion, but found no actual revenue documentation to support that criterion either. Because the petitioner failed to satisfy even three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination.
What failed: 1. Regional or local media coverage (low-circulation newspapers and a state-level TV channel) was insufficient to establish 'major media' under criterion iii. 2. Platform-based metrics such as follower counts, view counts, and estimated earnings did not substitute for documented actual revenue or demonstrated field-wide impact. 3. Community history displays and billboard placements did not qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases, and neither showed the petitioner's actual video work product.
Takeaway: Social media influencers pursuing EB-1A should document actual revenue figures (not estimates), secure coverage in nationally prominent publications, and show concrete evidence that their creative methods have influenced others in the field. Platform-generated metrics alone are insufficient to meet the evidentiary criteria.
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
- Regional or local media coverage (low-circulation newspapers and a state-level TV channel) was insufficient to establish 'major media' under criterion iii
- Platform-based metrics such as follower counts, view counts, and estimated earnings did not substitute for documented actual revenue or demonstrated field-wide impact
- Community history displays and billboard placements did not qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases, and neither showed the petitioner's actual video work product.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metSilver award determined by reader poll of regional Brazilian-American publication; TikTok award lacked evidence of national/international significance; YouTube 100K subscriber award not an award for excellence.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metYouTube Shorts creators' community only requires active short-video creation and policy compliance; no showing that invitations are issued by recognized experts or limited to those with outstanding achievements.
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed Director's finding that this criterion was met; Brazilian Times (16,000 circulation regional paper), hometown newspaper (4,500 print circulation), and TV Horizonte (biggest Catholic TV channel in one Brazilian state) were not established as major media.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metHigh view/follower counts do not establish originality or field-wide impact; no documentation that other influencers adopted petitioner's methods; no explanation of which contributions are original.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Not metBillboard and community history display showed only petitioner's photograph and text, not her actual video work product; neither venue qualifies as an artistic exhibition or showcase.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner raised criterion on appeal but provided no specifics about the organization or errors in the Director's finding; AAO declined to address further per Giday v. INS.
Commercial successes in the performing arts
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed Director's conclusion that petitioner is not in the performing arts (acting in sketches qualifies), but found no actual revenue documentation; estimated earnings from analytics website were explicitly labeled as estimates and not actual income records.
Silver award determined by reader poll of regional Brazilian Times publication — not nationally or internationally recognized
TikTok award — no documentation of national or international significance
YouTube 100,000 subscriber award — not an award for excellence; only requires active posting and policy compliance
YouTube Shorts creators' community membership — invitation does not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
Brazilian Times articles (circulation 16,000, regional) — not established as major media
Hometown Brazilian newspaper (4,500 print circulation, 17,200 website views) — not established as major media
TV Horizonte (largest Catholic TV channel in state of Minas Gerais) — not established as major media nationally
Recommendation letters for original contributions — did not explain how petitioner's work majorly influenced the field
High follower and view counts as proof of original contributions of major significance — popularity is not synonymous with originality or significance
Billboard display and community history plaque display — not artistic exhibitions or showcases and did not display petitioner's video work product
Analytics website estimate of $1,852–$2,910 per TikTok post — explicitly labeled as an estimation; not actual revenue documentation
Monetized YouTube channel — no documentation of actual advertising or sponsorship revenue provided
Director found criterion iii (published material) satisfied, but AAO found no publication qualified as major media and reversed this finding.
Director found criterion x (commercial success) inapplicable because petitioner does not work in performing arts; AAO reversed, finding that acting in video sketches constitutes performing arts.
Director described the membership criterion as requiring membership in a 'professional' association, which is not a requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); AAO noted this as a harmless error.
Completed
I-140 filed
Digital influencer and content creator producing short-form video sketches on YouTube and TikTok
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-11-26
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO also reversed the Director's finding that the published material criterion was satisfied.
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