Regulatory language: "Evidence satisfying criterion vii under the EB-1A regulatory framework." — 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(vii)
Remanded · 2024 Director denied for lack of evidence that works were shown alongside nationally/internationally renowned artists or at major solo venues; AAO found these were improperly imposed requirements. Participation in a joint project organized by a national centre for artistic creation in public space, where petitioner was listed as one of seven artists displaying participatory art, was sufficient.
Dismissed · 2025 Director denied this criterion, finding broadcast work did not appear at artistic exhibitions or showcases. AAO reversed, accepting broadcast journalism on television, radio, and social media as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), finding the criterion does not readily apply to journalism.
Dismissed · 2023 Director had found this criterion met at the RFE stage but did not mention it in the final decision; AAO confirmed petitioner meets this criterion based on display of costumes at figure skating, ice dancing, synchronized swimming competitions, theatrical performances, and other artistic exhibitions.
Dismissed · 2020 Met at Step 1: displayed artwork at three art exhibitions (2014–2017). At Step 2, found insufficient — participation in exhibits expected of artists; video game expo displays not qualifying artistic exhibitions; no evidence of individual recognition stemming from participation.
Dismissed · 2022 AAO reversed Director's narrow interpretation that this criterion applies only to visual arts, holding it can encompass documentary films. However, AAO still found criterion unmet because the petitioner submitted only 4 pages of an 80-page festival program and failed to establish the film was actually screened. New claims on appeal (museum and art festival) were not considered because not raised before the Director.
Dismissed · 2025 Presentations at an industry conference were described as a scientific conference with commercial exhibitors, not an artistic exhibition or showcase. Television appearances lacked verifiable documentation and new supporting letters submitted on appeal were not considered as the Petitioner had prior notice to submit such evidence.
Dismissed · 2015 Petitioner 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.
Dismissed · 2015 Petitioner claimed her work was displayed through publications, fashion shows, and events, but no documentary evidence showed her own work (as opposed to her clients' work) was on display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Her role in organizing logistics did not meet the plain language of the criterion.
AAO reversed Director's narrow interpretation that this criterion applies only to visual arts, holding it can encompass documentary films. However, AAO still found criterion unmet because the petitioner submitted only 4 pages of an 80-page festival program and failed to establish the film was actually screened. New claims on appeal (museum and art festival) were not considered because not raised before the Director.
Director denied for lack of evidence that works were shown alongside nationally/internationally renowned artists or at major solo venues; AAO found these were improperly imposed requirements. Participation in a joint project organized by a national centre for artistic creation in public space, where petitioner was listed as one of seven artists displaying participatory art, was sufficient.
Director denied this criterion, finding broadcast work did not appear at artistic exhibitions or showcases. AAO reversed, accepting broadcast journalism on television, radio, and social media as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), finding the criterion does not readily apply to journalism.
Director had found this criterion met at the RFE stage but did not mention it in the final decision; AAO confirmed petitioner meets this criterion based on display of costumes at figure skating, ice dancing, synchronized swimming competitions, theatrical performances, and other artistic exhibitions.
The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a fund manager back to the Director after finding multiple legal errors in the
A bodybuilding promoter's motions to reopen and reconsider his denied EB-1A petition were both denied because he failed
The AAO dismissed a seventh combined motion to reopen and reconsider an EB-1A petition for an accounting and tax consult
AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a global security expert because the Director improperly dismissed a timely motion
A collaborative pianist's EB-1A appeal was dismissed because he could only demonstrate two of the required three evident
The AAO remanded this EB-1A petition for a senior staff software engineer back to SCOPS because SCOPS reversed two previ
A competitive judo and jiu-jitsu wrestler from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A classification but fell short, meeting only one o
A table tennis coach's EB-1A petition was dismissed after she failed to meet even three of the required evidentiary crit
See all 548 criterion vii cases →