Common reasons evidence falls short

“the fact that the petitioner has produced evidence satisfying at least three evidentiary criteria does not necessarily establish that the beneficiary is eligible for the O-1 classification.”

“Published material that includes only a brief citation or passing reference to the beneficiary’s work is not “about” the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary’s work in the field, as required under this criterion.”

“Evidence that the beneficiary’s work was funded, patented, or published, while potentially demonstrating the work’s originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work is of major significance to the field.”

“It is not the title of the beneficiary’s role, but rather the beneficiary’s duties and performance in the role that determines whether the role is (or was) critical or essential.”

“The petitioner must show that the beneficiary has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that the beneficiary actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization.”

“A general unsupported assertion that the listed criterion does not readily apply to the beneficiary’s occupation is not probative. However, a statement alone can be sufficient if it is detailed, specific, and credible.”