dismissed EB-1A Case: Art Direction

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persona\ pfivacy 
PUBLIC 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdminisrrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
c LIN 08 047 50401 
 JUL % 9 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53 (b)(l )(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director concluded that 
the petitioner meets only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and evidence, much of which was already part of the record of 
proceeding or postdates the filing of the petition. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classifj the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an art director. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner "has received major internationally 
recognized awards including, a two-time winner at the 1 lth Annual Webby Awards in 2007, selection 
as a finalist for the One Show Interactive Merit Award, 2007 Clio Awards Finalist and a Cannes Lions 
Award 2007 Finalist." Counsel's response to the director's request for additional evidence and 
appellate brief do not challenge the director's conclusion that the record does not contain evidence that 
the petitioner received a major internationally recognized award. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser 
internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an 
alien must meet at least three. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality 
of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a $1 million cash prize. While an 
internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting 
all of those elements, it is clear Erom the example provided by Congress that the award must be 
internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. As will be 
discussed below, the awards actually received by the petitioner are not even lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized awards. Thus, none of them can constitute a major internationally 
recognized award. 
Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifj as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following 
criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
At the outset, we note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the alien's 
receipt of qualifjing "prizes or awards." Thus, awards received by the petitioner's employer, award 
nominations, or finalist status cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The online LOST Experience Sprite promotion, for which the petitioner served as art director, received 
a 2007 Interactive Merit Award, Business to Consumer, at The One Show. The petitioner did not 
submit a photocopy or photograph of a certificate or statue confirming that she personally received this 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
award. The same campaign was one of at least 21 interactive campaigns appearing on the Cyber Lions 
"short list" for Integrated Campaigns at the 2007 Cannes Lions festival. Similarly, the same campaign 
appears on the 2007 Clio Awards short list. The credits list the petitioner as one of six art directors for 
this promotion. In addition, the same campaign was a finalist at the 2007 Revolution Awards. Finalist 
or runner up status is not an award or prize. 
The petitioner submitted two certificates from the 11" Annual Webby Awards in 2007. The certificates 
are issued to the petitioner in the categories of integrated marketing campaign and food and beverage. 
Contrary to the assertions of counsel, however, these certificates do not document "awards" but 
"official honoree" status, received by 15 percent of entrants. According to the materials submitted in 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, the Webby Awards issues two awards in 
every category: the Webby Award and the People's Voice Award. The petitioner did not receive either 
of these awards. We note that the website materials submitted by the petitioner show separate links for 
"winners" and "official honorees." Recognition akin to an honorable mention is not an award or prize. 
The petitioner did submit a photograph of a 2007 Silver World Medal trophy issued to her from the 
New York Festivals for the Sprite integrated campaign. According to the materials submitted in 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, however, the New York Festivals, while an 
international competition, issues 120 gold, silver and bronze world medals (40 at each level). While 
only one percent of the total entrants receive awards, it remains that 80 other promotions received the 
same or higher recognition at this event. 
Further, a prepared case study of the LOST Experience campaign was one of four 2006 "Wommie" 
winners sponsored by the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). Significantly, Coca- 
Cola Company is the recognized recipient of this award, not the petitioner or even her advertising 
company employer. The awards appear to recognize the case studies prepared for the campaign rather 
than the campaigns themselves. The record lacks evidence as to whether the petitioner, an art director 
for the actual campaign, was involved in the case study. As noted by the director, 2006 was the first 
year WOMMA issued Wommies. 
Finally, AKQA Inc.'s "Nike Nature," for which the petitioner appears to have served as art director, is 
featured as one of several possible wallpapers available on the website of the Favorite Website Awards 
(FWA). "Nike Nature," however, is not listed as one of AKQA's award-winning promotions. 
Regardless, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner personally received an award from 
FWA. 
The director concluded that the above recognition did not rise to the level of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the Webbys have been hailed as the "Oscars of the Internet" by the New 
York Times. As stated above, however, the petitioner did not receive a Webby Award or the People's 
Voice Award, also issued at this competition. Rather, she received recognition as an "official honoree." 
Page 5 
We are not satisfied that this recognition constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award. 
Counsel also discusses the prestige of the Clio Awards, the Cannes Lions festival, the One Show and 
the Revolution Awards. As discussed above, however, the petitioner did not personally receive awards 
at these events and her project was only a finalist. Counsel also discusses the FWA, but, as stated 
above, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner received an FWA or even that her work for 
Nike was so recognized. 
Regarding the recognition fiom WOMMA, counsel asserts that while a new award, the Womrnie 
represents new marketing strategies. As noted above, however, the petitioner did not personally receive 
a Womrnie. In fact, the advertising company for which she worked at the time also is not the named 
recipient of the award. Rather, the award was issued to Coca-Cola for its case study of the promotion. 
The record lacks evidence as to the significance of an art director to the case study. 
Regarding the New York Festivals, counsel reiterates that less than one percent of entrants received 
awards. We are not persuaded, however, that the issuance of 40 gold and 40 silver medals is consistent 
with a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
Finally, counsel discusses awards won after the date of filing. These awards have no relevance to the 
petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing, the date as of which she must establish her eligibility. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1971). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted an undated article in USA Today about Doritos' campaign to select an 
unsigned musician for a music video to be aired during the Super Bowl. While the petitioner was the 
art director for the promotion of the contest, there is no evidence that she served as the art director for 
the video that was ultimately aired during the Super Bowl. Regardless, she is not mentioned in this 
article. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 24, 2003 article in Adweek about the filming of Woody Allen's 
typewriter for a promotional poster for his play "Writer's Block." Once again, the article does not 
mention the petitioner by name or even single out the art direction of the promotion. Rather, the focus 
is Mr. Allen's concern for his typewriter during the photo shoot and his ultimate approval of the results. 
Page 6 
In addition, the petitioner's advertisements were featured in Liirzer S Archive, Creative Review and 
Graphis Poster Annual. The inclusion of her work in these magazines, however, is not published 
material about her. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a Winter 2007 
edition of Eye containing an article about India's communication industry that includes two paragraphs 
about the petitioner. The petition was filed November 28,2007 and it is not clear whether the "Winter" 
edition of Eye had been issued as of that date. Even assuming it was issued prior to the date of filing, 
the article is not "about" the petitioner. 
The petitioner also submitted a June 2008 edition of How featuring a four paragraph blurb about the 
petitioner. This material postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 
$6 103,2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The director concluded that the material submitted initially was not "about" the petitioner and that the 
petitioner had not established that the materials submitted subsequently appeared in professional or 
major trade journals or other major media. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that Eye and How are both internationally distributed and submits 
information about these publications. As stated above, however, the material in How postdates the 
petition and cannot be considered. While counsel asserts that the petitioner was featured in How prior 
to the date of filing, that material was not submitted on appeal or previously. Counsel also references 
an interview with Woody Allen that is also not in the record. Regardless, counsel's discussion of the 
interview does not suggest that the interview was about the petitioner. While we acknowledge that the 
petitioner's photograph accompanies the Eye article, we are not persuaded that the article is primarily 
about the petitioner. Moreover, as stated above, the article was not submitted initially and it is not clear 
whether or not the issue was published prior to the date of filing. 
The petitioner also submits (1) a December 30, 2007 article in USA Today that does not mention the 
petitioner by name and postdates the filing of the petition, (2) an August 28, 2006 spotlight in the 
Examiner that credits the petitioner with the art direction of a Sprite promotion but is not "about" the 
petitioner, (3) a February 18, 2008 promotion for a podcast interview with the petitioner and the other 
creator of Doritos' Crash the Super Bowl competition, (4) a January 11, 2008 article in Adweek about 
the Doritos' promotion that quotes the petitioner but is not about her, (5) a promotion for the Doritos' 
contest dated October 12, 2007 on the website Promo that mentions the petitioner but is not about her 
and (6) articles about a Sprite promotion that do not mention the petitioner by name. The December 
30, 2007 and February 18,2008 materials postdate the petition and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 
$9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Kutigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The remaining materials submitted for 
the first time on appeal are not "about" the petitioner. 
The most extensive published material relating to the petitioner potentially predating the petition in the 
record is the discussion of the petitioner in the Eye article. This material, included in an article that is 
not primarily about the petitioner and possibly published after the date of filing, is insufficiently 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor signficance in thejeld 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion and we will not withdraw that conclusion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
As stated above, the petitioner's advertisements have been "displayed" at festivals and in advertising 
magazines. The director did not consider this evidence under this criterion. Rather, the director 
concluded that the Doritos' Super Bowl advertisement and the petitioner's California exhibit occurred 
after the date of filing. The director Wher noted that the California exhibit was for "emerging artists." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the displays at award festivals and the use of her work in advertisements 
in general serve to meet this criterion. Counsel is not persuasive. Awards are a separate criterion, set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We cannot conclude that evidence insufficient to meet that criterion 
is presumptive evidence to meet this criterion. Moreover, the materials for these festivals reveal that 
they are open to paid entrants. Thus, the mere display of work at these festivals cannot be considered to 
be indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In addition, advertisements are not artistic exhibitions or showcases and, thus, cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. Moreover, while the petitioner was the art director for the promotion of the contest for the 
Super Bowl song, the ultimate video for the song that was actually shown during the Super Bowl was 
not her work. Specifically, there is no evidence that the petitioner was the art director for the video of 
the winner's song. Regardless, while Super Bowl advertisements are carefully crafted to make the most 
of the audience and to reflect the high cost of the advertising spot, they are not artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
Finally, the magazines featuring the petitioner's work are not artistic exhibits or showcases. 
Specifically, they contain a sample of innovative advertisements and are not promoted as exhibitions or 
showcases of the work of one artist or a handful of artists. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion as an art director. The record amply establishes that her 
employers have enjoyed a distinguished reputation nationally as evidenced in part by the nationally 
prestigious nature of their clients. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
Page 8 
petitioner submitted an organizational chart showing that she reports to the Vice President, Creatives, 
one of three vice presidents, all of whom report directly to the Chief Executive Officer and President. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the leading or critical nature of her role. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that while many individuals may hold the position of art director, the 
petitioner's successful campaigns demonstrate her critical role for her employers. Counsel notes the 
petitioner's credited role on successful campaigns. 
The director already considered the petitioner's contributions in her role as art director and concluded 
that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). At issue for this criterion are the nature of the 
role for which the petitioner was selected and the reputation of the entity that selected her. We do not 
contest the distinguished reputation of her employers. Rather, the petitioner has not established that the 
role of art director is leading or critical for those employers other than the obvious need to employ 
competent art directors. If the petitioner's employer employs several art directors as implied by 
counsel, that information is not consistent with a determination that the role of art director is leading or 
critical. Even if we concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion through her critical role on several 
successful and recognized advertising campaigns, and it is not clear that a single campaign is an 
organization or establishment, she would meet only one additional criterion and, thus, would still not 
meet the necessary three criteria. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's remuneration was commensurate with her position and 
location and counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. We concur with the 
director that she does not for the reasons expressed by the director. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofJice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The director concluded that this criterion was not applicable to the petitioner's field and that the sales of 
her clients' products was not comparable to the box office receipts or media sales required to meet this 
criterion for a performing artist. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the increase in sales at Doritos and Coca-Cola are attributable to the 
petitioner's work and provides data in support of this assertion. Counsel concludes that such evidence 
is comparable evidence to meet this criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4). 
We are not persuaded that the increase in sales attributed to the petitioner's advertising campaigns, 
which are designed to boost sales, is remotely comparable to the type of personal commercial success 
contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(x). Specifically, the personal commercial 
success of a performing artist is indicative of that artists' individual acclaim. The success of a product, 
however, does not demonstrate the same type of individual recognition of the advertising agency or 
artistic director promoting the product. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as an art 
director to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as an art director, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.