dismissed EB-1A Case: Graphic Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12210842 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a manager of creative services/senior graphic designer, seeks classification as an 
individual 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 although the 
Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, as required, he did not 
show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was employed as a manager of creative services tori I ~---~I as of the date of filing and that he previously served in a senior graphic designer role 
for this employer. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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 Petitioner has consistently claimed that he meets the following four 
criteria: 1 
I (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
I (vii), Display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
I (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation; and 
I (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
1 The Petitioner initially claimed that he satisfied the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), but on 
appeal, he does contest the Director's determination that he did not meet this criterion. In addition, the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) and denial addressed the criteria relating to awards and commercial success in the performing arts, 
although the Petitioner did not claim that he meets these two criteria. The Petitioner does not address these criteria on 
appeal. Issues or claims that are not raised on appeal are deemed to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 
767 n.2 (BIA 2009). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court determined the plaintiff's claims 
to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets the criteria relating to judging, display at artistic exhibitions, 
and leading or critical roles. The Petitioner's participation on a jury panel atl Is 2018 and 2019 
I I Connections trade shows demonstrates that he has participated as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or allied field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3){iv). The record also reflects that the 
Petitioner has displayed his artwork at three art exhibitions inl I thus meeting the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Finally, the Petitioner demonstrated that he serves in a critical role withe=] 
I I and established the distinguished reputation of that organization. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Because the Petitioner has established that he meets the requisite three evidentiary criteria, he has 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director's 
decision did not explain why the submitted evidence was insufficient to establish that he satisfied the 
high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). He also asserts that the Director's failure to grant 
this fourth criterion prejudiced his case. 
We will consider the evidence submitted in support of the high salary criterion, together with the 
balance of the record, to determine whether the Petitoner possesses the level of sustained acclaim and 
standing in his field to establish his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 2 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established his 
eligibility. 
The Petitioner's supporting letter describes him as "one of the industr 's most successful raphic 
designers and art directors." The record confirms his employment with since 
2016, where he currently serves as Manager, Creative Services assigned to the.__ ______ _. 
brand. A letter from a former director of design tori I confirms that he provided 
services td las a contracted graphic designer in in "2014/15." Earlier in his career, beginning in 
2006 or 2007, 3 the Petitioner worked as a contracted graphic designer tori J I 
2 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD11-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise for the immi rant classification . 
3 A letter from formed !Manager forL----r-----1---....l inl I indicates 
that the Petitioner worked for._______. from 2006 until 2012. A letter from ~---~Company payroll department 
indicates that he was on the company payroll from July 2007 until November 2011, while the introductory letter submitted 
in support of the petition indicates that the Petitioner lettl , In 2010 "to pursue other creative endeavors." 
3 
inl I and later as a senior graphic/product designer for th~ I irl~--~ 
The supporting letter mentions that he has also provided services as a desi ner for other co
1
p~n-ies I 
i n c I u di n g I I I I L....,..,.----,-_____,,,........r--,.J and 
I I Other evidence indicates that the Petitioner studied art in _____ ____,and began his 
design career in the advertising industry in the late 1990s. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner established that he has judged the work of others within his field, 
displayed his work at artistic exhibitions, and performed in a critical role tori I The 
record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, it is appropriate to evaluate the 
significance of his experience to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary ability 
for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22.4 The Petitioner 
submitted evidence that he served on the 68-member juries at the 2018 and 2019 I I 
Connections trade show, an annual event organized by I I and described as "the only custom 
made trade show for the creative community." The evidence establishes that the Connections trade 
shows include an award component in which the jury selects winners in the areas of creative content, 
video and print advertising and other creative specialties. The record reflects thatl I is a global 
network and resource that offers exposure to companies and individual members of the creative 
community. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director's final merits determination failed to consider the prestige of 
thisl levent or the stature of his fellow jurors. Specifically, he notes that his fellow jurors were 
creative professionals from companies such as Vans, Nike, Sony Pictures, Apple, Google and NBC 
Universal, demonstrating that the jury was comprised of "a veritable who's who of top creative talent." 
We note that all of the supporting evidence regarding the 1 !Connections shows was sourced 
from the event's own website. The evidence does not establish, for example, that the awards bestowed 
by juries at these shows are major awards in the creative industry or that the Connections show receives 
media coverage in professional or trade publications or major media. The record supports the 
Petitioner's claim that most of the jurors hold creative positions with well-known companies, but the 
evidence does not describel ~s jury selection process or otherwise corroborate the Petitioner's 
assertion that only those in the small percentage at the very top of the creative field are invited to 
participate as jurors. We acknowledge that each juror was recognized with an individual profile and 
short interview published on the event's website but it is unclear how this recognition by the organizers 
resulted in or is reflective of the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim as a graphic 
artist or art director. The record does not demonstrate that he garnered wide attention from the field 
based on his work as a juror at these annual events. 
We also note that the Petitioner's only documented judging experience, in 2018 and 2019, is quite 
recent and therefore does not clearly support a determination that he has documented a "career of 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress or indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The 
Petitioner indicates that he has "several years" of jury experience at this event but has not documented 
any participation as a juror at this or any other event prior to 2018. Without evidence that sets him 
apart from others in his field, the Petitioner has not shown that his judging experience places him 
among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
As it relates to the display of his work at artistic exhibitions and showcases, the Petitioner provided 
evidence that he displayed his artwork at (1) the 2014 of the Art Show" an exhibit at 
Stan Lee's I I Ex o; 2 a 2016 exhibit titled ' held at the 
Exhibit A Gallery in ; and (3) a 2017 exhibit titled 
L..,--,------;---,-------,,....,..,...,.~---,----,-,------' 
hosted by Creature Features in ............ ~~- In addition to these 
exhibitions, the Petitioner claimed eligibility under the display criterion based on his creative 
contributions toOs promotional materials forl land I I game displays at the 
[ I video game expo,L ~omic-Con International, and I I l !events, described as "some of the biggest events in the videogame industry." 
In addressing this criterion in the final merits determination, the Director observed that "participation 
in exhibits is expected of artists," and determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated how his 
own participation demonstrates his sustained acclaim. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director 
failed to consider the nature and importance of the exhibitions in which he participated and failed to 
explain why the evidence was deficient to s~rt his extraordinary ability claim. The Petitioner 
solely emphasizes the work h~ perfored forL._J's releases of I J and I I which 
was displayed atl I, Comic-Con, and0gaming conventions. However, while he 
established that he worked on promotional materials, the evidence does not establish that these 
video game industry events qualify as "artistic exhibitions or showcases" intended to display the work 
of individual graphic or visual artists. 
With respect to the "Mistress of the Art Show," the Petitioner submitted a letter from .... l __ ____. 
..,..._ ___ ..........__re_s_id_e_nt_o~f I I who describes this art show as a main feature of the 
L..._ _____ __,.... _ _.__ex_h_i_b_it,,_a--,nd as "one of the most popular" shows "within the world of comic 
books and horror."~----~ who states that her company holds licensing rights for horror film 
iconl I indicates that she selects no more than 25 artists out of hundreds of submissions for this 
art show. She identifies "notable artists" who have participated in these exhibitions, and states that 
she selected the Petitioner because he has consistently provided exceptional artwork for her company. 
The Petitioner also submitted promotional materials for the exhibition and background informp-1i.o.n, 
regarding thel I indicating that it is the largest pop culture convention held inl_J 
I I 
However, the submitted media coverage about the~--------~ exhibition does not 
highlight the "Mistress of the Art Show" or the artists participating in the show. Nor isD 
I l's letter alone sufficient to establish that only acclaimed artists were selected to participate 
in this exhibition. In addition, although the record documents the Petitioner's participation in the 
above-referenced I I tribute and ~------~ exhibits, it does not include 
supporting evidence demonstrating his involvement in either show resulted in or is indicative of his 
5 
significant reco nition in the field. Overall, the Petitioner has not established that his participation in 
the three.___ __ ~ _ ____.exhibitions mentioned, between 2014 and 2017, places him among the 
small percentage at t every top of his field or contributed to his sustained national acclaim in the field. 
With respect to the Petitione
1
·s empioym
1
ent, tie appeal brief emphasizes that he has worked with 
prestigious companies such as and which "surely have their choice when hiring graphic 
designers," and notes that these companies have entrusted him with progressively more senior roles 
within their design departments. The Petitioner further states that the Director failed to explain how a 
graphic designer "working in a critical and leading role for a respected multinational company with 
an instantly recognizable name - an individual with overall responsibility for a brand that is an 
international blockbuster - has somehow not risen to the top of his field." 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has worked for,___ ____ ____.since December 2016. While 
the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner established his critical role with the company, the record 
does not support his claim that he has "overall res onsibility" for thel I brand. The Petitioner 
initially submitted a letter from Director of Creative Services fo~ I along 
with evidence indicating that.___ __ ___. is recognized as bein~ the original design team for 
and has been featured and interviewed onL__J fan websites. I I .___ _____ ____. 
explained that the Petitioner was hired to "manage the workflow for the US team including all creative 
for licensing, marketing and packaging." He emphasized the Petitioner's "carefully honed expertise, 
and his broad knowledge of fashion, licensing and marketing" and noted that he was instrumental in 
the marketin cam aigns for the major release of I I and I I both award-winning 
games. further described the Petitioner as "overtly influential in the continued success 
of '----~ 
The record also contains a more recent letter froml I a Senior Vice President of I.______. 
I land Chief Brand Officer o~ I. I !describes the Petitioner's 
responsibilities as "senior graphic designer/manager of creative services of.___ ______ _. 
noting that he delegates responsibilities to internal designers, selects external creative agencies, works 
with them to develop the brand's trend st le uides, and reviews and validates creative assets. He 
states that "the entire operation of the Head Office relies upon his experience, expertise, 
leadership and critical role." FinallY,~----~mphasizes the success o~ I notes 
the game's many accolades and industry awards, and attributes this success, in part, to the Petitioner's 
"leadership and guidance." 
Whilel I confirms that the Petitioner contributed to the successful promotional launch of 
two major video game titles, it is unclear how his contributions resulted in national or international 
acclaim to the Petitioner personally. The record contains a
1
ple ev
1
dence that the games were well-
received and received awards, but this represents acclaim to and the already successful I I 
brand, not to the Beneficiary in his personal capacity as a graphic desi ner workinq on creative aspects 
of licensing, marketing and packaging. Submitted credits for th and[ I games 
indicate the Petitioner's involvement as a member of~----~ 's creative services team, but 
these credits list many other branding, marketing, licensing and creative services employees working 
for various companies, many of them senior to the Petitioner. In fact, both I ~ and 
.___ ___ _, hold senior positions within the I I brand team, which raises questions regarding 
6 
statements that the Petitioner, as a senior graphic designer, is the person primarily responsible for all 
creative aspects of the brand. 
The Petitioner suggests that the very fact tha~ I hired him to work on its flagship brand indicates 
that he is at the top of his field, but we cannot reach this conclusion based solely on the statements 
provided byl I representatives. We acknowledge that the company clearly value his creative 
talents and consider him a key contributor to creative services for the brand. However, absent evidence 
that sustained national or international acclaim is a condition of being considered for employment for 
a graphic design position withl I or that his role has resulted in such acclaim, he cannot establish 
extraordinary ability based solely r his losition with the company. The evidence demonstrates that 
the Beneficiary's contributions for have been noticed within the company, but the record does 
not establish that his achievements have been recognized more broadly in the field of expertise at the 
level required to support an extraordinary ability claim. As noted, it appears that his participation as 
a juror for the 1 I Connections shows in 2018 and 2019 likely stemmed from his key creative 
role with a prominent company likel I but this evidence alone does not establish his sustained 
national acclaim as a graphic designer. 
The Petitioner has also submitted letters regarding his role as a senior graphic and product designer 
tori I .___ ____ ....,.former European Design Manager otl lread Office in 
I I indicates that the Petitioner was part of the creative team that designs I 
merchanrlise sold across Europe, including products such as apparel and home accessories. He notes 
that the[ I organization "is in a position to set extremely high hiring standards for 
Desi ners" and attracts the "best and brightest." With respect to the Petitioner's contribu~ 
notes that his ro · ects included major I ltranch ises such as I I L____J 
and.__ ________ ___. and explains that he won an international intracompany design 
competition that resulted in the release of a limited edition t-shirt featuring his design and signature. 
He also highlights the success of a Christmas tree ornament set designed by the Petitioner that quickly 
earned collectable status. 
While the evidence establishes that Petitioner was a member of a critical design team that developed 
I !products sold throughout Europe and had some notable successes, the record does not 
establish that the widespread distribution of the products or artwork he designed resulted in individual 
recognition for the Petitioner that would constitute national or international acclaim in his field. While 
we do not doubt that I I has high standards when selecting grapTc desirers for their creative 
teams, the evidence does not support a conclusion that being hired by alone is evidence that 
he is recognized as being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. We acknowledge the 
Petitioner's success in his industry, but the record has not shown that he has received national or 
international acclaim for his work on these projects. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by determining that he did not provide evidence 
that he has commanded a high salary in relation to others. Offer and promotion letters froml I I I indicate that he was hired at an annual base salary of $82,500, that his base salary in the 2019 
fiscal year was $85,660, and that his 2020 fiscal year pay rate would be $90,800. He was notified of 
7 
a promotion to the position of Manager, Creative Services on May 1, 2019.5 His initial offer letter 
indicates his eligibility to participate in an Employee Bonus Program. The Petitioner also submitted 
copies of his IRS Form W-2s indicating that he earned "wages, tips and other compensation" of 
$80,954 in 2017, $149,117.48 in 2018, and $114,428.92 in 2019. Based on the letters discussed above, 
his reported income in 2018 and 2019 reflected substantial bonuses. 
The Petitioner submitted a 2019 graphic designer occupational profile from the Department of Labor's 
CareerOneStop website which shows salary data for the I I area where he 
works. This evidence shows a median wage of $55,300, a 75th percentile wage of $73,240, and a 90th 
percentile wage of $94,310. The Petitioner also compares his total compensation figures to the U.S. 
Department of Labor data for both Graphic Designers in tha larea at the Level 4, or fully 
competent, wage, stating that his compensation significantly exceeds those wages. We note that the 
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data obtained from the FLCDatacenter.com website, from 
which the Petitioner obtained this data, does not include bonuses or benefits. 6 Therefore, the 
Petitioner's base salary is the appropriate basis for comparison to the Department of Labor data he 
provided. 
According to the Department of Labor database for the period beginning July 2019, the Level 4 Wage 
for a graphic designer is $71,178. The evidence indicates that the Petitioner's base salary is higher 
than the average wage for a graphic designer with his education and experience, and even above the 
75th percentile wage. However, it does not establish how his salary places him among the small 
percentage of graphic designers at the very top of the field. Although the Petitioner's total 
remuneration was significantly higher than his base salary in 2018 and 2019, he has not provided 
evidence that would allow us to compare his total remuneration to that of others in his field. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his ongoing 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)(1)(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 he 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has performed design work for high-profile brands and has been entrusted with 
increasing responsibility, particularly in his latest role withl I However, the record does not 
indicate that he has already achieved a degree of recognition consistent with the sustained acclaim that 
the statute demands. We find the record insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or 
5 The Petitioner listed his occupation as "Art Director/Graphic Designer" on the Form 1-140. The Petitioner explained that 
he anticipated at the time of filing that his job title following promotion would be "Art Director." However, the promotion 
letter identifying his new position as "Manager, Creative Services" pre-dated the filing of the petition by three months. 
6 See the OES FAQ page at https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm (last visited Nov. 25, 2020). 
8 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner was granted 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Despite any number of previously approved petitions, USCIS does not have the authority to confer an 
immigration benefit when a petitioner fails to meet their burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See 
Section 291 of the Act. Moreover, an adjudicator's fact-finding authority is not constrained by any 
prior petition approval, but instead, is based on the merits of each case. In this case, for the reasons 
discussed, the evidence did not meet the Petitioner's burden of proof for this highly-restrictive 
immigrant classification. 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if 
a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not 
bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9