dismissed EB-1A Case: Graphic Design

PUBLIC CON 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
CENTER 
 Date: 
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. 5 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. 
u 
F~obert Y. Wiernann. Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203@)(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153@)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinaxy ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and thus qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203@) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall fmt 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking smmigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (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 
smaII percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(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. €j 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria wiII be addressed beIow. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, fiIed on October 25, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a Graphic Designer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
nationaI or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, 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 qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. § 204.5 (h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he received a Promaxh3roadcast Designer's Association (BDA) 
Silver Award in 1998 and a Gold Award in 2000. In response to the director's request for evidence (WE),' the 
petitioner submitted a letter from 
 Vice President, PromaxlSDA, stating: 
Our annual awards competitions recognize superior creative work in North America, Latin America, the 
United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The PromaxBDA award is the 
highest honor available for designers in this field. To win this highly coveted award entrants must 
compete against more than 4,000 entnes from around the world and be judged by a panel of experienced 
design and marketing professionals. 
The petitioner also submitted information posted on Promax/DBA7s internet site encouragmg registration for its 
2007 conference in New York. The preceding documents do not establish that the petitioner's two awards from 
1998 and 2000 were nationally or internationally recognized. Further, the petitioner's response did not address 
the selection criteria as requested by the director. The director concluded that the preceding awards were not 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim in the field of endeavor. 
The Promax/BDA Awards have become the most highly regarded and widely recognized symbol for 
design and marketing excellence in the electronic media industry worldwide. 
participation of renowned individuals such as Fo 
served as speakers and presenters. 
The PromaxIBDA Awards honor the best work from companies and individuals around the world. 
As the methods of electronic media distribution evolve and as technology transforms the tools that 
promoters, marketers and designers have at their disposal, the PromadBDA Awards strive to reflect 
the resulting changes. 
The director's RFE stated: "Please submit additional documentary evidence which establishes the significance of the 
award, the requirements necessary to compete for the award, and the criteria used to select the recipient." 
With over 11,500 entnes submitted in over 300 categories, the competition is fierce and, in fact, 
increases with every awards season. The recipients of Gold, Silver and Bronze honors are 
the top creatives in their field. BDA Silver Award winners include = 
reative Director, ~~~;xecutive Producer/Creative Director, ABC News; 
irector of Design, CBS; Scot Safon, SVP Marketing, CNN; Ann Epstein, Executive 
Producer, E! Entertainment Networks to name a few. 
The letter fio 
 submitted in response to the director's RFE states that "entrants must compete 
around the world." [Emphasis added.] Contrary to the information he 
initially provided, ~une 28, 2007 letter states that the competition has "over 11,500 entries 
submitted in over 300 categories." [Emphasis added]. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
While it is unclear whether Gold, Silver, and Bronze awards are presented in each of the more than "300 
categories" of Promax/DBA7s annual competition, it is apparent that the number of awards annually conferred is 
s~bstantial.~ Further, individuals and companies participating in the PromaxIDBA competition can self-nominate 
and must pay an entry fee to P~OI~X/DBA.~ The petitioner has not established that his two awards from 
PromaxR>BA constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of 
endeavor. True awards for excellence in the field are generally not contingent upon payment of a fee. 
Further, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)(1) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized and it is his burden to establish every element of 
this criterion. In this case, the petitioner has not shown that his two awards commanded a significant level of 
recognition beyond the presenting organization. As such, the petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their mem bers, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
For example, according to the "Prornax/DBA Design Awards 2008" listing, there were more than 560 award recipients. 
See http:Nwww.pron~axbda.org/media~site/pdEDA Design Awards winners.pdf , accessed on August 29, 2008. 
PrornadDBA's competitive submission instructions include a section entitled "How To Pay For Your Entries." This 
section states: "A11 payments must be made in US Dollars. Please make all payments payable to Prornax/DBA. All 
entries must be paid prior to the judging period in order to qualify for judging. . . . If you are sending multiple entries all 
entries must be paid with a single check, a single wire transfer, or a single credit card charge." See 
http://www.promaxbda.or~awards.asw'?n=insctionsIO, accessed on August 29, 2008. 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a May 19,2005 letter from the Canadian Society of Cinematographers (CSC) stating 
that he has been a member since November 27, 1997. The letter does not spec@ whether the petitioner is a 
full member (the highest level of membership), associate member, or affiliate member. The petitioner also 
submitted information fiom CSC's internet site stating: "To become a full member of the CSC the applicant 
must be professionally employed as a cinematographer for a period of at least 5 years and must be hlly 
qualified to assume the responsibilities as a Director of Photography or must have to his or her credit 
exceptional achievement as a cinematographer." The preceding information indicates that admission to full 
membership in the CSC is contingent upon years of employment and job qualifications or exceptional 
achievement. Even if the petitioner were to demonstrate that he is a full member, we cannot conclude that 
hlfillment of such standards constitutes "outstanding achievements" as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a May 9, 2005 letter from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts 
(BAFTA), East Coast stating that he has been a member since March 2005. The letter does not specify 
whether the petitioner is a full member (the highest level of membership), professional member, associate 
member, student member, or visitor member.' The petitioner also submitted information &om BAFTA East 
Coast's internet site (printed on September 15, 2005) stating that its Full Membership (voting members) 
category "has been frozen." This information further states that Full Membership is for "[pJrofessionals with 
at least 3 years experience working in or with the British or Irish film, television or interactive industries. 
Selection criteria includes length of industry involvement, creative contribution to the industry and industry 
awards and affiliations." While the selection criteria include consideration of the preceding factors, the 
information submitted by the petitioner does not specify which of them must be satisfied for admission to 
membership. The documentation submitted by the petitioner also indicates that membership in BAFTA East 
Coast is contingent upon payment of annual dues. Even if the petitioner were to demonstrate that he is a full 
voting member, he has not established that that fulfillment of the preceding standards constitutes "outstanding 
achievements" as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
In res onse to the director's WE, the petitioner submitted his "Provisory Members Card" fo 
d Members Club (HBMc).' The petitioner also submitted 
Membership Manager, HBMC, stating: "To become a member of 
uim 
, one has to be approved 
by our committee and needs to have sufficient criteria in order to become a member of the club. Members of 
are the 
 restive's [sic] who have reached the very top of their profession 
in their respective field." 
 letter does not indicate the date when the petitioner became a 
provisory member. 
 A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time 
Q§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Cornm. 1971). Nor does 
BAFTA East Coast has five categories of membership. See h~://www.baftaeastcoast.com/ioin/cate~s, 
accessed on August 29,2008. 
' The card states that the petitioner's provisory membership is "Valid until 10107." 
Page 6 
define "provisory" membership or specify the club's criteria for admission to membership. 
 The term 
"provisory" indicates that the petitioner's membership was conditional. 
The etitioner's response to the director's RFE also included an October 30, 2006 letter from- 
ounder and Creative Director of Stellar Network, stating that the petitioner is a member of the 
Stellar Network, a networking group whose "mission is to connect New York's film, theatre and television 
professionals by offering members a unique program of social, developmental and interactive opportunities, 
workshop and education." 
 letter does not specify her organization's criteria for 
admission to membership. 
In this case, there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing 
that the Stellar Network, the HBMC, BAFTA East Coast, and the CSC require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied 
one. As such, the petitioner has not established that he 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 of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New 
York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.6 
The petitioner submitted a captioned photograph in the July 15 - 22, 2004 issue of Time Out New York 
promoting a T-shirt he designed. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted information from 
Time Out New York's internet site indicating that it has a total average paid circulation of 139,140 in the New 
York area. We cannot conclude that this local publication qualifies as major media. Further, it has not been 
established that a captioned photograph meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a book review in the September 1 1, 
 Globe and Mail discussing a 
book by entitled Away. This review is about book and only mentions the 
petitioner s name in 
 The plain language of this 
 however, requires that the 
published material be "about the alien." 
- 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
The book review of Away in The Globe and Mail states: "[The petitioner] has done full justice to Away, creating a 
book that gives as much pleasure to hold as to read. The Burne-Jones painting on the cover might well have been 
expressly commissioned, the type is clear, unfussy, and the smell of the rich silky paper reminds us that reading can be 
as much a sensuous as a cerebral delight." 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted an image of his work accompanying an article in the September/October 1996 issue of 
Applied Arts Magazine. The article, entitled "You're Watching ID TV, Don't Go Away . . . ," is not about the 
petitioner and includes images of work fkom multiple graphic designers. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from ~ana~er of Program 
Development, NBC Universal Digital Studios, stating: "[Oln August 3 1, 2005, I asked [the petitioner] to 
participate in an interview on camera for a design and business show here at NBC about truly innovative 
design & business professionals." The record, however, includes no video footage or transcript of the 
petitioner's interview. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The 
non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
€j 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, there is no evidence showing that the interview was broadcast by major media 
outlets, that the footage aired nationally or internationally, or that it was otherwise distributed in a manner 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Finally, the title of the show and the date of its 
broadcast were not provided as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner's response to the director's RFE included a four-sentence piece in the February 6,2006 issue of 
Teen Vogue and a single sentence about the petitioner's Braille T-shirt in the April 2006 issue of Child 
magazine. This material was published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this material in this proceeding. 
The petitioner also submitted a six-sentence piece regarding T-shirts that he had designed in Elle Girl, but his 
name is not mentioned. Further, the date and author of the material were not provided as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner's response to the director's RFE also included a photograph of caring the 
petitioner's T-shirt in the August 15, 2005 issue of New York, but there is no indication that the petitioner's 
name was mentioned. Further, there is no evidence showing that New York magazine qualifies as major 
media. Nor has it been established that a photograph meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted an October 13, 2004 article in the New York edition of Daily Candy. 
According to documentation submitted by the petitioner, DaiZy Candy is a fkee, internet-only newsletter with 
online editions specific to eleven cities. The article, entitled "Feeling Groovy," states: 
NYC designer [the petitioner], inspired by a fiend who suffered a stroke that left him temporarily 
blind, learned that most cases of blindness in Ahca can be cured for $30. Thus, See NYC T-shirts 
were born. The men and women's tops are embossed with sayings like "Come Closer," "I Love New 
York," and "Brooklyn," only they don't say it with letters. They say it with fuzzy Braille circles. 
Page 8 
Profits raised are donated to charities that help the visually impaired, like Sight Savers International 
and Lions Club. 
The preceding article was accompanied by an article about Daily Candy in the online edition of The Wall 
Street Journal stating: 
Daily Candy's business is a simple one: 
 It produces urbane email newsletters that make daily 
recommendations on shopping, entertainment, food and media. Originally written for a clutch of 
trend-obsessed New York City women, the site produces 1 1 electronic newsletters, including editions 
for Chicago, San Francisco and London. Advertisers pay for access to the newsletter subscribers. 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner reflects that the "Feeling Groovy" article appeared in the New 
York edition of Daily Candy rather than in all eleven online editions. There is no evidence showing that the 
local New York online edition qualifies as major media. Further, the author of the article was not provided as 
required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Finally, the record does not indicate whether the 
preceding article was a paid promotional advertisement or the result of independent media reportage. A paid 
promotional advertisement cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner's response to the director's RFE included a five-sentence piece about his T-shirts in Trace 
magazine. Information submitted by the petitioner reflects that Trace magazine has a circulation of 103,224 
with editions printed in the United States and the United Kingdom. The petitioner has not established that 
this publication qualifies as major media in either country. Further, the date and author of the material were 
not provided as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted a nine-sentence piece in 20/20 Magazine, an optical publication, discussing his 
T-shirts. The article was accompanied by 20/20 Magazine's 2006 Media Planning Guide, which states: 
"With diverse and objective coverage on all optical products including eyewear, sunwear, lenses, contact 
lenses, accessories and equipment, 20/20 hlly caters to the needs of opticians, optometrists and dispensing 
ophthalmolo~sts." Information in the Media Planning Guide indicates that 201'20 Magazine has a total 
circulation of 49,522 and that its top three categories of subscribers are optometrists (20,318), opticians 
(1 9,187), and ophthalmologists (3,109). While this magazine qualifies as a major professional publication in 
the optical industry, it has not been established that being mentioned in this publication is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim in the field of graphic design, the field for which classification is 
sought. Nevertheless, the date and author of the material were not provided as required by the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion. 
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, the director's decision noted that the petitioner "did not submit copies of 
the actual articles" as they appeared in several of the above-referenced publications. The director's decision also 
stated that the preceding articles "are all relatively short articles that only briefly mention the petitioner." We 
concur with the director's observations. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speclJication for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5@)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "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. § 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
competition involving experienced professionals is of far greater probative value than judging a competition 
involving novices. 
The petitioner submitted a letter fromlient Outreach Officer and Architect, Government of 
Manitoba, stating: 
1 was a student at the University of Toronto who, with a group of others, contracted [the petitioner] to 
teach portfolio design as a vehicle to gain entrance to architectural school. As a result of [the 
petitioner's] . . . rigorous tutelage, I gained acceptance to Canada's most competitive School of 
Architecture at the University of Toronto. 
Teaching a portfolio design class to prospective architectural students is not tantamount to the petitioner's 
participation as a judge of the work of others in his field or an allied one. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from creative Director, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 
(CBC), who supervised the petitioner at the CBC fiom June 1994 to December 1998. In discussing the 
petitioner's work for the CBC's design department, October 26, 2006 letter states: "[The 
petitioner] created and taught a series of designer-based cinematography workshops attended by graphic 
design professionals. [The petitioner] actively reviewed, critiqued, analyzed, and judged the participants' 
work, providing extensive professional evaluation." We cannot conclude that teaching a workshop at the 
request of one's employer is tantamount to judging the work of others in the field. While an instructor does 
evaluate the work of his or her pupils, this evaluation is inherent in the process of teaching. The petitioner's 
assignment to teach a workshop for his employer demonstrates that the CBC design department valued his 
competency and knowledge, but it has not been established that simply performing one's job duties (such as 
training students or subordinates) meets this regulatory criterion and demonstrates sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Page 10 
The pttitioner also submitted two letters from Art Director, MuchMusic, a Canadian 
television network, discussin the petitioner's participation in the 2003 MuchMusic student image brand 
identity competition. ay 25,2005 letter states: 
I met [the petitioner] in 1988 in London[,] England, when we worked on, and collaborated on many 
successful projects together. 
In 2003 [the petitioner] was invited to be a judge for the MuchMusic annual student identity 
competition, to select the best student work to be broadcast nationally. Several hundred applicants 
applied and a short list of 30 candidates was complied [sic]. A panel of judges from the design world 
were asked to evaluate them in order to select the top candidates. Because Stephen has consistently 
sustained critical acclaim over a number of years, and the fact that he has achieved a degree of 
expertise demonstrating that he is one of those few who has risen to the top of his profession, we 
asked him to participate as we valued his judgment and integrity. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[e]vidence of the alien's parhcipation . . . as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." We cannot conclude that evaluating students, 
who have not yet begun working in the field, meets this requirement. Further, the record includes no supporting 
evidence establishing the level of acclaim associated with judging this student contest. Nor is there evidence 
showing the specific work judged by the petitioner, the names of those he evaluated, or documentation of his 
assessments. Without evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner has judged experienced graphic 
designers in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support from his professional contacts. We cite representative 
examples here. 
Design in Australia states that he met the petitioner when they were 
in 1999. He further states: "[The petitioner's] work has earnt [sic] him 
many admirers and it would be an understatement to say the [petitioner's] vision has changed the face of 
modem design." letter, however, does not specifically identify which aspects of the 
petitioner's work "changed the face of modern design." 
keyboard player and co-writer for the Grammy nominated musical group The Cure, states 
graphic designer currently responsible for the internet presence of his organization. 
 He 
fbrther states: "I have worked with [the petitioner] since 1992 on several projects and found him to be a 
person of exceptional and extraordinary talent and ability." 
The petitioner submitted multiple letters fro 
 and Chief Financial Officer of 
Outsider Pictures LLC. In his June 21, 2005 
 ates: 
Page 11 
I have known of [the petitioner] professionally for 14 years. 
 I was first made aware of [the 
petitioner's] work when visiting a fhend in Toronto, Canada who . . . worked for a TV station 
creating interstitials. . . . Over the years I have followed [the petitioner's] career, and seen his ideas 
spring into life with the recent fashiodlifestyle campaigns, which I personally believe to be a world 
class idea and one that can be adopted and fianchised in countries around the world. 
initial letter expresses his opinion regarding future expectations for the petitioner's 
fashion/lifestyle campaign rather than addressing how the work has already had a significant national or 
international impact such that it can be considered a contribution of major significance in the field. A 
petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
[The petitioner] . . . recently brought to our attention a documentary project, "Re:Sight," which he is 
producing and directing. We are pleased to inform you that Outsider Pictures is interested in 
distributing this film in the U.S. We feel it could easily fit into our programming for national DVD 
distribution as well as limited theatrical exposure and would be worth at least $50,000. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's documentary project constitutes a contribution of major 
significance in his field or that his documentary had been released as of the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.20>)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
~ssistant Photo Editor, 
 states: "[The petitioner] is an extremely talented person in his 
field, a man that the world of 
 television design definitely needs in its midst. I know [the 
petitioner] through our mutual posts on the committee of Stellar Network, one of New York's most successful 
film, theater, and television networking organizations." 
I first met [the petitioner] when we worked together at FOX News in New York. . . . [The petitioner] 
and I worked on numerous projects together and I always admired the dedication and steadfast work 
ethic that he brought to each assignment. 
contributions to his profession are so profound that his influence reaches far beyond those he 
interacts with personally to reach those throughout the industry in different parts of the world. 
4Mp 
letter, however, fails to specify the petitioner's original contnbutions that have influenced his 
- Page 12 
Owner and Director, Meta-Lingo Electronic Media, states: 
 "[The petitioner] and I have 
worked together on numerous projects over the 6 years that I have known him for clients including Food 
Network, Fine Living, ABC, Discovery Networks, and many others. He is an extremely talented designer 
who I've always enjoyed collaborating with." 
I have known [the petitioner] since 1994 when we were both employed as Senior Graphic Designers 
with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Toronto, Canada. . . . In this creative environment 
[the petitioner] shone brightly as an exceptionally talented designer of animated show openings, 
graphic production elements, print pieces and web design. [The petitioner] consistently provided 
creative and elegant design solutions that met both artistic and very specific technical challenges in 
the highly charged and time sensitive environment that is broadcast television. 
owner, Producer, and President, Beachfiont Films, states: 
[The petitioner] and I met on a Committee for the non-profit organization The Stellar Network, and 
we had the occasion to work very closely together on some large fund-raising events. We have 
subsequently collaborated on several other projects together . . . . [The petitioner] is an outstanding 
graphic designer, and in my experience, I've never met anyone with his ability to do print and tv 
animations combining traditional skills and computer techniques. 
creative Director, Chum Television, Toronto, states that he met the petitioner when he was 
working at the CBC in 2994. He fin-ther states: "Since then I've known [the petitioner] to be an extremely 
talented designer and animator for both print and broadcast television. He has a rare and unique ability to do 
exceptional design aid animation work using both computer and traditional methods." 
Having had the opportunity to work with [the petitioner] for the last ten years while at various 
companies in New York and Toronto and now at Ipswich, I can tell you that he stands out to me as 
being wholly original in the approach to his craft. His experimentation in the field and devotion to 
creating a unique vision have time and again generated a superior end product. 
The preceding letters of recommendation demonstrate that the petitioner's talent as a graphic designer has 
earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he has worked, but these letters fail to demonstrate that 
he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. 
, Director of Development and Communications, 
 International, states: "I work 
with [the petitioner] and SeeNYC on their line of Braille 
 e petitioner's] exceptional and 
inspirational work with his creation and marketing of products with 
 has had a positive impact for 
organizations like HKI by raising needed funds and public awareness."-letter does not specify 
the amount of funding attributable to the petitioner's merchandise, nor is there evidence showing that his 
products generated substantial national or international sales. While the petitioner's creation and marketing 
Page 13 
of products withas helped raise bnds and public awareness, it has not been established that his work 
constitutes original artistic contributions of major significance in the field of graphic design. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from 
 ~ead of Communications, Sightsavers International. 
In his May 19,2005 letter,states: "I have known of [the petitioner] professionally for two years. 
[The petitioner] has provided a very exciting creative talent in producing t-shirts and other merchandise which 
have contributed greatly to our organization. The use of-cross his work has been very innovative and 
really made his work unique." 
~ovember 2,2006 letter states: 
Since he first approached our organization three years ago with plans to donate proceeds from the 
innovative SeeNYC line om T-shirts, [the petitioner] has contributed greatly to our operations. 
We are fortunate to have partnered with [the petitioner] as his is not only an extraordinarily talented 
designer, but one of only few in the world who has chosen to apply his slulls to 
Sightsavers has found his contributions invaluable. 
 We contracted him to 
September 2006 New York photo exhibition . . . . Based on the success of this event and his 
prodigious talents, we have since asked him to design and produce and ongoing series of DVD 
designs and packaging and we are currently discussing hture work around wallpaper to utilize 
in schools for the blind around the world. 
letters do not specify the dollar amount of the proceeds the petitioner has donated or the sales 
volume generated by the SeeNYC line o--shirts. While the petitioner's work is certainly admirable, 
it has not been established that it was tantamount to original contributions of major significance in his field. 
With regard to the petitioner's work on the 2006 photo exhibition, the request that he design and produce 
DVD designs and packaging, and the discussions pertaining to the utilization o 
v 
allpaper in schools 
for the blind, we note that these activities occurred subsequent to the petition's 1 ing date. A petitioner, 
however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these activities in this proceeding. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 204,5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but 
of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. While the petitioner is admired for his creative talent and charitable endeavors, 
there is no evidence demonstrating the national or international success of his work such that it can be 
considered original artistic contributions of major significance in his field. For example, the record does not 
indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other graphic designers nationally or internationally, nor 
does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner's professional contacts are not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comrnr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
Page 14 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner' s reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would expect of a graphic 
designer who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that 
the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise 
risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted a May 5, 2005 letter frornArt Director, 
 td., a 
Canadian publishing company, stating that the petitioner "was employed by Gas an 
Associate 
 ~irector, fiom June 1991 to Dec. 1995" and that he designed "many critically acclaimed 
covers, and book designs, includingnd Booker Prize winner The 
petitioner also submitted examples of book jackets he designed. In these examples, the artwork featured on 
the covers of these books consisted of photographs and paintings fiom other artists. For example, the cover of 
Away, the book that was the subject of a review in The Globe and Mail, shows a painting "The Evening Star" 
We cannot conclude that the petitioner's production of a book cover displaying 
is tantamount to the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
 The 
director's decision noted that the petitioner's creation of book jacket designs was inherent to his occupation 
and would be expected of any successfU1 graphic designer. Further, the record lacks supporting evidence 
showing that the petitioner's book jacket designs were singled out for critical acclaim by others in his field. 
In response to the director's WE, the petitioner submitted an October 20,2006 letter from - 
owner of the New York, stating: "I have invited [the petitioner] to hold an 
exhibition of his East-meets-West Braille designs and concept rooms at my gallery in November 2007." This 
exhibition was scheduled subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this exhibition in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe@ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
With regard to the petitioner's roIe at the CBC, the petitioner initially submitted a letter fi-om John Vegter 
stating: 
Page 15 
Among his duties while he worked for me were to design and produce promotional and print 
campaigns for the CBC nationwide news, financial programs, art programming, and merchandising. 
In the course of worlung on many projects, [the petitioner] acted as team leader and held a critical 
role in the projects he undertook. He invented concepts, oversaw projects, taught classes in design 
and cinematography, interacted with clients and other departments. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted an October 26,2006 letter fiom ing: 
In his capacity as lead designer and project manager, [the petitioner] produced work of the highest 
quality and consistently kept the award-winning CBC design department at the top of the industry. 
He was chosen to design the complete packaging for Canada: A People's History the 30-hour 
documentary TV series that has been recognized with three Gemini Awards . . . . [The petitioner] 
also designed, art directed and produced financial and arts programming (including the More Tears 
and Foolish Heart series) . . . . 
In addition to these projects, [the petitioner] played a critical role in the development of the CBC 
design department overall. He created and taught a series of designer-based cinematography 
workshops attended by graphic design professionals. 
letter indicates that the petitioner contributed his talents to departmental projects and training, 
but it has not been established that his role was leading or critical to the CBC as a whole.' 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an organizational chart for the CBC Design Department reflecting that the 
Lead Designer is subordinate to the Design Manager, Creative Director, Graphics Coordinator, and Art 
Directors (2). The petitioner also submits a document entitled "CBC/Radio-Canada: Facts at a Glance" 
stating: "The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors, made up of 12 Directors, including the Chair 
and the President and CEO [Chief Executive Officer]." Another document submitted on appeal identifies the 
CBC's "key people" as its President, Executive Vice President, and Editor-in-Chief for news operations. 
While the record includes documentation showing that the CBC has a distinguished reputation, the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his role as Lead Designer was leading or critical for the 
CBC. There is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him fiom the multiple senior 
managers in his department, let alone the CBC's executive leadership. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner shows that he performed admirably on the projects assigned to him, but it does not establish that he was 
responsible for the CBC's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" 
and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
With regard to the petitioner's role for the Stellar Network, the petitioner submitted a May 17, 2005 letter 
fiom Nicola Behrman, Founder, Stellar Network, New York, who states that her organization connects "New 
. - 
With regard to the petitioner's packaging design for Canada: A People's History, there is no evidence identifying the 
specific categories for which this documentary won Gemini Awards or showing that receipt of these awards was 
primarily attributable to the petitioner's work. 
York's film, theatre and television professionals" through "professional and social events." 
fhther states: 
[The petitioner] is a member of our committee, which actively supports talented up and coming 
filmmakers, who are working to establish themselves in the world of film. Stellar Network's board of 
directors . . . includes: 
s a valuable part of the stellar community - he contributes lcnowledge and creative energy to 
=- 
our events, and was heavily involved with starting stellar school for NY film makers are [sic] series 
of workshops and lectures. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted the October 30,2006 letter from- 
stating that she "founded Stellar Network in 2004." She Wher states that the petitioner's "enthusiasm and 
skill were invaluable to the launch of Stellar" and that he "continues to perform a critical and leading role" for 
the organization. The bottom of her letter lists 18 members who serve on the "Stellar Network Board." The 
petitioner's name does not appear on this list. The petitioner also submitted information printed fiom Stellar 
Network's internet site indicating that he is one of 12 members of the "Stellar Network NY Committee." 
While the Stellar Network Board includes several renowned members, there is no evidence (such as published 
media reports) showing that the Stellar Network has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner submitted 
information printed from the Stellar Network's internet site, but the self-serving nature of this documentation 
is not sufficient to demonstrate that the organization has earned a distinguished reputation. Further, there is 
no evidence differentiating petitioner's role from that of the other committee members, let alone the 18 
individuals who serve on the board of directors and the organization's two co-founders. As such, the petitioner 
has not established that his role was leading or critical. 
With regard to the petitioner's role fo 
 May 5,2005 letter fiorn - 
o states that the petitioner "was employed b 
 as an Associate Art Director, 
fiom June 1991 to Dec. 1995.'rther states: "During the time that we worked together, [the 
petitioner) was able to take on new responsibilities on a regular basis. I found him to be a pleasure to work 
kith and extremely cab1e.statement.s do not establish that the petitioner's role is Associate Art 
Director atwas leading or critical. There is no evidence differentiating the petitioner's 
role fkom others in the company holding similar positions or more senior management. The petitioner also 
submitted information printed from internet site, but the self-serving nature of this 
documentation is not adequate to demonstrate that the company had a distinguished reputation during the 
petitioner's employment. 
[The petitioner] worked under my supervision at~ntertainment from November 1999 to 
November 2000. It was a pleasure to have him on my team. In the course of working on many 
projects, he handled many of our large clients fiom ABC to NASDAQ. [The petitioner] was closely 
involved in many aspects of creative work covering live action, post-production and print design. 
[The petitioner's] is a special talent as he has mastery of traditional drawing and computer skills, a 
combination of skills that you don't find every day in the design world. 
In response to the director's WE, the petitioner submitted a November 10, 2006 letter fiom 
stating: 
As Talent Director at ntertainment our Emmy winning production team first 
hired [the petitioner] in 1997. Impressed by his critically acclaimed body of work and his original 
ideas he was immediately placed into the roIe of senior graphic designer; winning this position over a 
myriad of other candidates. [The petitioner] worked with me on projects for CBS, USA Networks, 
Discovery Networks, TLC and HGTV proving to be a remarkably gifted designer and a celebrated 
team member. 
assert that the petitioner was a valued team member at- 
ntertainment, there is no evidence differentiating the petitioner's role fi-om others in the company holding 
similar positions or more senior management. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he 
was responsible for the company's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role." The petitioner also submitted information printed fiom Big Chief Entertainment's internet site, but 
the self-serving nature of this documentation is not adequate to demonstrate that the company had a 
distinguished reputation during the petitioner's employment. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the October 17, 2006 letter discussing the petitioner's 
involvement as judge for the 2003 MuchMusic student competition meets this regulatory criterion. We 
cannot conclude that the petitioner's involvement in this single event is tantamount to a leading or critical role 
for the MuchMusic television network.' Further, while the petitioner submitted general information fiom 
MuchMusic's internet site, there is no evidence showing that this organization has a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel also argues that the captioned photograph in the July 15 - 22, 2004 issue of Time Out New York 
shows that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for Ana Data Consulting, Inc. The caption 
states: "Ana Data's designer [the petitioner], is revamping a graphic design icon for a good cause. See NYC 
T-shirts bear the phrase I t NY in Braille . . . ." Nothing in this material demonstrates that the petitioner's 
role for this company was leading or critica~.'~ Although the petitioner has identified Ana Data Consulting as 
his employer from April 2003 to September 2005, the record does not include a letter of support from this 
company discussing his role as a graphic designer. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for Ana Data Consulting or that the company has a 
distinguished reputation. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner was ever employed by MuchMusic. 
lo According to the petitioner's Form G-325A, Biographic Information, he was employed by Ana Data Consulting, Inc. 
from April 2003 to September 2005. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of 
a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's work as a lecturer and instructor in the field of design, his 
work for the More Tears and Foolish Heart series at CBC," and the letters of support fiom his professional 
contacts are comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability pursuant to C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). Much of this 
evidence has already been addressed under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5@)(3). Further, there is 
no evidence that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation of as comparable evidence constitutes 
achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his 
field. While expert opinion letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in 
assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's 
achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires 
"extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153 (b)( l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5 (h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of 
extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary 
evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probahve value than the opinions of one's professional 
acquaintances. 
Nevertheless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" 
only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 
visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). In fact, the petitioner has submitted evidence specifically addressing 
seven of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of these 
criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(4) does not allow for the submission of 
comparable evidence. 
Documentation in the record indicates that the alien was the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimrnigrant 
visa petition filed in his behalf by Ana Data Consulting, hc. Although the words "extraordinary ability'' are 
used in the Act for classification of msts under both the nonirnrnigrant 0- 1 and the first preference employment- 
based immigrant categories, the statute and regulations define the term differently for each classification. Section 
10 1 (a)(46) of the Act states, "The term 'extraordinary ability' means, for purposes of section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i), in 
the case of the arts, distinction." The 0-1 regulation reiterates that "[elxtraordinary ability in the field of arts 
means distinction." 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standard than that required for the immigrant 
classification, which defines extraordinary ability as "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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The 
11 
While the petitioner contributed to these productions, there is no evidence showing that hs design and art direction for 
these series were singled out for critical acclaim. 
evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also differ in several respects, for example, nominations for 
awards or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 eligibility, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant 
classification requires actual receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear statutory and regulatory distinction between these two classifications, the 
petitioner's prior receipt of 0-1 nonimmigrant classification is not evidence of his eligibility for immigrant 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Whrle CIS has approved an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, that prior approval 
does not preclude CIS fiom denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS 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 Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussa Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomely, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987)' cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers 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 
the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. LMS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1 139 (5 th Cir. 200 1 ), cert. denied, 
122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished hlmself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have acheved sustained national or international acclaim or to be withm the small percentage at the 
very top of hs field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achevements set him significantly above 
almost all others in hs field at the national or international level. 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. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is &smissed.