dismissed EB-1A Case: Design And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 06, 2024 In Re: 30776291 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a design and marketing executive specializing in the area of aircraft livery, seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant 
visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for this classification. Specifically, 
he determined that the Petitioner did not meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b)(l) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that the term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those 
individuals in "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." It also 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. A petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of their 
achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about other awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l0) ( discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is employed as the Chief Creative Officer and Partner for F-G- USA Inc., a company 
providing digital media marketing services, advertising campaigns, and livery design services. The 
record shows that he has several years of experience in the fields of marketing, branding, and design, 
and intends to continue in these roles with his current employer in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field 
and the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to published materials about him and his work in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, and his membership in associations 
requiring outstanding achievements of their members. 1 After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we find that it does not establish that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, and thus 
does not meet the initial evidence requirements for an individual of extraordinary ability. 
2 
1 As the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision that he does not meet the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) relating to his performance in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation, we consider that claim to be waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing 
Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
To meet the standards of this criterion, an individual must submit evidence that 1) they are a member 
of an association; 2) the association is in their field of extraordinary ability; 3) the association requires 
outstanding achievements as a condition for membership; and 4) that the outstanding achievements 
are judged by national or international experts in their fields. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Association of Registered Graphic 
Designers (RGD) as a registered member, which allows him to use the "RGD" designation. He 
therefore satisfied the first two elements of this criterion. He also submitted the section of the RGD 
bylaws relating to membership which states that in addition to educational, experiential, and fee 
requirements, registered members must successfully complete a qualification examination, which 
includes an online test and portfolio interview. The Petitioner further included the results of his on line 
test and portfolio interview in the record, which included a note stating that due to his more than 15 
years of experience he was not required to complete three of the five sections of the test relating to 
design research, design principles, and business. Finally, he submitted articles and profiles about other 
RGD members. 
The Director concluded that this evidence was insufficient to show that RGD requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in denying his claim to this 
criterion, the Director did not take the evidence regarding the qualification examination and profile 
interview into consideration, and placed too much emphasis on the payment of annual dues as a 
disqualifying factor. He also asserts that the qualification examination is a stringent one, and that 
RGD is regarded as a prestigious association in the field. However, we note that pages from the 
association's website state that the RGD designation (and thus membership at the Petitioner's level) 
is a "signal[ s] of quality and competence to the profession, public and government," indicating that it 
reflects the attainment of a standard of professionalism rather than an outstanding professional 
achievement. 
This is also shown by the Petitioner's exemption from three of the five sections of the online test due 
to his experience in the field. In general, requirements based upon a minimum level of education or 
years of experience do not show that membership is based upon outstanding achievements. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the website also 
describes the designation requirements as "rigorous," the allowance for the substitution of experience 
for sections of the test shows that the emphasis is upon acquired knowledge and skill in the field rather 
than professional achievements that elevate a member above their peers. 
In addition, the criteria used by RGD in evaluating the Petitioner's portfolio presentation do not 
consider any specific achievements that would make a potential member stand out from other graphic 
design professionals. Rather, they focus on questions such as whether the presentation demonstrated 
the Petitioner's knowledge of his clients and their needs and whether he displayed originality and 
proficiency in developing designs that successfully met those needs. And the reviewer comments also 
3 
focus on the Petitioner's communication, business, and design skills rather than any achievements 
which set him apart from his colleagues. 
Finally, although the record includes the professional profiles of several RGD members who include 
that designation in their profile, this evidence does not show that attaining the designation is an 
outstanding achievement in and of itself. Rather, the use of that designation in these profiles, 
frequently used for job searches, demonstrates a wish to convey a certain level of skill and 
professionalism that could be desirable to a potential employer. 
For all of the reasons above, the Petitioner has not established that his membership in RGD required 
him to demonstrate outstanding achievements in his field. So we conclude that he does not meet 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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
This criterion requires evidence showing published material about the individual and their work in the 
field of extraordinary ability. In addition, that material must include basic information such as its title, 
date and author, and must have been published in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. 
Here, the Petitioner submitted several articles which were about him and which focused on his designs 
of aircraft livery. This includes two articles on the website businessinsider.com, as well as articles on 
cnet.com, wearefinn.com, aviationweek.com, and other websites relating to the aviation industry. At 
least one article was published in print: theI 12023 edition of Metropolitan Airport News included 
an interview of the Petitioner about his work as an aircraft livery designer. The record also includes 
media kits and "About" pages regarding these websites, as well as reports from similarweb.com 
showing statistics including total visits over a three-month period and global, country and industry 
rankings. While the Director acknowledged that these articles were about the Petitioner and his work, 
he concluded that these materials did not establish that any of the websites or journals qualified as 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the reports from similarweb.com are reliable sources of the 
readership or circulation of the websites. In support of this, he points to printouts featuring a variety 
of well-known companies and media outlets which "either refer[s] to SimilarWeb to indicate the 
reliability of the publication it cites, or advertises its own website on the sites in which articles about 
[the Petitioner] are featured." He also asserts that because these companies chose to advertise on these 
websites, an inference can be made that the websites have "national and global reach." 
This latter assertion made by the Petitioner is not supported by the evidence but based only upon 
conjecture. In determining whether a particular medium or publication qualified under this criterion, 
we consider such relevant factors as the intended audience and the relative circulation, readership, or 
viewership. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(1). The Petitioner has not established that 
4 
which advertisements appear on a particular webpage for a particular user at a particular time is a 
similarly relevant factor in making that determination. 
As for the figures provided by the websites and in the similarweb.com reports, relative circulation, 
viewership, or readership figures are relevant when considering major trade publications or other 
major media. The record demonstrates that the information from similarweb.com is relied upon in 
media and other industries to evaluate website traffic and other performance indicators, but the figures 
provided are insufficient to show that any of the websites in which the articles about the Petitioner 
appeared are one of those qualifying types of media. For example, the information from the 
businessinsider.com website states that its platform has 200 million "global monthly uniques," but 
does not clarify whether this figure reflects traffic on just the website or includes other websites and 
social media platforms, and does not put this figure into perspective. In responding to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner added a report from similarweb.com about this website, 
stating that it experienced almost 186 million visits over a three-month period and had monthly unique 
visitors of 38.5 million. It also provides global and country rank figures, and an industry rank amongst 
"search engines." But this information does not include sufficient context to establish that 
businessinsider.com is either a major trade medium or other major medium, as the total size of the 
groups in which the website is ranked is not identified. And the industry ranking amongst "search 
engines" does not identify a particular trade or profession which is the intended audience of this 
medium. 
Other reports from similarweb.com appear to include customized searches by the Petitioner, but the 
relevance of this information has not been demonstrated. For example, the Petitioner asserts in his 
RFE response that the website aviationweek.com, which published an article about him and his work, 
is ranked seventh for "aviation-related websites." But the report showing this website in the seventh 
position is labeled "audience interests" without explanation of this term, the list is comprised mainly 
of websites serving the "travel and tourism" industry, and the ranking is based upon "cross-visitation," 
another term that is not explained. And while the same visits and ranking information discussed above 
is also provided for this website, they suffer from the same lack of context, and are significantly lower 
than those for businessinsider.com. 
The evidence regarding the remaining websites which published articles about the Petitioner and his 
work have the same issues as those described above. While we disagree with the Director's conclusion 
that statistics such as those from similarweb.com are not useful in determining whether a website may 
qualify as professional or major trade publication or other major media, in this case the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated the significance or relevance of the figures provided to establish the major status of 
these websites. As such, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the articles about his him 
and his work were published in professional, major trade or other major media, and he does not meet 
the requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we have reviewed 
5 
the entire record and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has the acclaim and 
recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of their work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that they are one of the small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6