dismissed EB-1A Case: Interactive Multimedia Producer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10742249 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 16, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an interactive multimedia producer , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Petitioner had 
not established his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or satisfaction of at least three 
of the initial evidentiary criteria . 
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 , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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 indivi duals 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 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indi~ployment as the founder and chief executive officer for I I I lin L____J Illinois. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
that he received a major, internationally recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), and that he did not satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner fulfilled only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, memberships at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioners argues that he received a one-time achievement and, in 
the alternative, meets an additional criterion, awards at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 1 After reviewing all 
of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he garnered a 
major, internationally recognized award or satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Moreover, although we agree with the Director that the Petitioner complied with the judging criterion, 
we do not concur with the Director's decision regarding the membership criterion, discussed later. 
A. One-Time Achievement 
At the outset, the record contains sufficient documentation establishing his receipt of a 2018 I } 
Award jn the category of'I j t, for I r I I' that includes a .... p_h_o-to_g_ra_p_h_of_a_t_ro_p_h_Y._r_e_fl_ec-t-in-g-th ..... e 
Petitioner as a named recipient. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that al !Award 
qualifies as a major, internationally recognized award for the reasons discussed below. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from .... ! ____ I co-founder and CEO of .... l _____ ..... l(parent 
company to th~ I Awards), who stated: 
1 Issues or claims that are not raised on appeal are deemed to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&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 plaintiffs claims to 
be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
The D A wards honor the talented agencies, brands, industry and creative leaders 
the very best and most innovative work onl,_ ____ _.l channels, campaigns,! I 
and I L Al IA ward is considered the most internationally prestigious 
award for excellence inl I I I accurately called the I I 
A wards the 'I I' 
Further, the Petitioner presented additional letters from I I who proclaimed that the 
1 ~ wards are considered the most internationally prestigious award for excellence in I I 
I I often referred to as the I J "2 ( emphasis in original). Moreover, he 
offered letters from other individuals who opined that "[t]he most prestigious award in the world 
recognizing the best and most innovative work o platforms is Thd IAwards," 3 
"[ w ]hen it comes to recognizing the interactiveL...--,----,-J content inl ~' there is g 
no awards organization more prestigious than Th....___--.--,Awards, which are known as the 
I 
oJ I 1"4 "[t]hd IAward is the world's most prestigi~us award for excellence i 
._ __ ____._ content, akin to the I I for the I I space,") and "[a] I I Award is like 
receiving an Oscar or a Grammy and the international recognition it confers is invaluable for the award 
recipient's career." 6 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots of a 2010 article entitled, 
I I' from I I reflecting '-t-he-e-st_a_b_li-sh-m-en_t_of-. -th_e_, 
awards in 2008 to honor users of I f and then later expanded to otherl I platfo~ 
record also contains several website articles covering the awards ceremony and referencing thel__J 
A wards as the However, the Petitioner submitted articles that contradict or 
question the stature or recognition of the Awards. S ecificall the Petitioner resented a blo 
from nytimes.com indicatin& that'~-----::~--------------:,----;::::======:;----~ 
I J Further, in a 2016 article from blastingnews.com, tated that 
":----------:-----:--------:-----:---------:-----:--------:-------:-------;:::==;--------:------:--------:----:-----:------' signifying that 
the creator of the awards does not believe that the I f Awards have reached a level of prestige or 
prominence as the as claimed b others. Moreover the Petitioner offered screenshots from a 
partial article entitled, '~----------------~ from balancecareers.com that 
ranked thel I Awards as seventh, which is not representative of a major, internationally 
recognized award. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[s]uch evidence shall include evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major internal[ly] recognized award)." Further, the House Report 
specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement. 7 See H.R. Rep. 101-
723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in l 990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. Moreover, 
~-----_,marketing and paitnerships manager, and_l ____ ____.I marketing and pa1inerships 
senior director <;W.1,1....:>.1..LLL.1.1'1....LLL..l.!.IJ..u.i....i........ ___ ~ 
3 See letter fro executive producer for._,! __ ...., r------,.~~___.r--~=-::..:::.; 4 
See letter from1--------r-1 E tor~----' 
5 See letter from ____ .....,senior content marketing strateg;=i~st~t~o-rl __ ~----~ 
6 See letter from~---~ director of digital marketing fol._ _________ __. 
7 Although in the 0-1 nonimmigrant extraordinary ability context, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) provides 
an example of the Nobel Prize as an example of a major, internationally recognized award. 
3 
we have consistently recognized other examples of a one-time achievement include the Pulitzer Prize , 
an Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. Further , we must look to Congress' intent that 
"admissi on under this category is to be reserve d for that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Id. Thus, consistent with legislative history, a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly , with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. 
In addition , the selection of Nobel Laureates , the example provided by Congress indicated above , is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a 
familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally 
recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those 
elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope 
and internationally recognized, not just acknowledged within the field as its highest award . 
h the letters and media articles presented by the Petitioner opine or refer to thel I Awards 
F..__--,. __ ....,..._...,.... __ ~ neither the letters nor the articles explain , justify, or demonstrate how 
___ Awards enjoy a similar level of recognition or status as the Academy Awards , to be 
considered a one-time achievement or major, internationally recognized award. In fact, as mentioned 
above, some the articles indicate lesser recognition or standing, as evidenced byl ~uote in 
the blastingnews .com article . Here , the Petitioner did not establish that receipt of aL__J Award 
qualifies as a one-time achievement , nor are we persuaded that the top award in each and every field 
qualifies as a one-time achievement. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the I !Awards 
are familiar with the public at large, such as Olympic Medals , Nobel Prizes , Pulitzer Prizes , and 
Academy Awards. Furthermore, the fact that a major , internationally recognized award, such as an 
Olympic Medal , may not exist in a particular field does not mean that we should diminish the 
impres sive nature of the one-time achievement and accept a lesser one as a major , internationally 
recognized award. In cases where an alien cannot obtain a one-time achievement , including instances 
where it is not available in a field, "[ a ]n alien can also qualify on the basis of a career of acclaimed 
work in the field" by satisfying three of the ten categories of evidence . See H.R. Rep . at 59 and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover , awards that may be internationally recognized in the field do not 
necessarily demonstrate that they are also major or consistent with one-time achievements. In those 
instances , the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) allows for an alien to submit lesser internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
In the case here , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the I , !Awards enjoy broad, significant, 
and international recognition and receives a similar level of attention or popularity by the general 
public comparable to other major , globally recognized awards such as Nobel Prizes , Olympic Medals, 
and Oscars. Although the Petitioner did not show that hd.__~IAward qualifies as a one-time 
achievement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he did demonstrate that it meets the requirements for a lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) . 
4 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner established that his DA ward satisfies this criterion. 
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). 
The Director found that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion without identifying the qualifying 
memberships and explaining his determination. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must 
show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is 
sought. 8 Because the record does not reflect that the Petitioner established eligibility under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), we will withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion at the time of filing based 
on memberships with: 1) Real Time Academy of Short Form and Sciences (RTASFS), 2) Telly 
Awards Judging Council (TAJC), 3) the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences (IADAS), 
and 4) the Academy of Interactive and Visual Arts (AIVA). For each one, the Petitioner submitted 
similar letters mirroring the regulatory language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii): 
• Membership in [RTASFS] is by invitation only. In order to be considered for membership in 
in [RTASFS], members must demonstrate outsrndingl professional achievements and 
recognition as industry leaders as determined by the Awards' executive board. 9 
• In order to be considered for membership in [TAJC], members must demonstrate outstanding 
professional achievements and recognition as industry leaders. 10 
• Membership to the IADAS is by invite only. In order to be considered for membership in the 
IADAS, members must demonstrate outstanding professional achievements and must be 
verified as experts and leaders in their peer group as determined by experience and expertise 
in their field. 11 
• Membership to AIV A is by invitation only and based on a nomination by a founding or current 
member of the Academy plus demonstrated outstanding achievement in the field and 
recognition as an industry leader. Our Membership Committee, comprised of an international 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
9 
See letter (July l;.::2:.i.., ..:::2.::...0 l:;.;:9:..:..)..;:;;fr:..::o..:c:m;:i.1 ========-----~ 
10 See letter froml ~ for TAJC. 
11 See letter from~I ----------~lfor IADAS. 
5 
panel of experts, reviews all nominations and/or applications to membership before extending 
an invitation to join the AIV A. 12 
Although the letters repeat the regulatory language, they do not point to any governing authority 
establishing that membership with any of the associations require outstanding achievements, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990);Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.) (repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof). Further, as it relates to RTASFS and TAJC, the Petitioner did not submit 
any supporting evidence relating to the membership requirements, such as the bylaws or other official 
membership documentation, to corroborate the letters' assertions. Instead, the Petitioner provided 
evidence relating to awards and competitions from the associations. 
Regarding IADAS, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from the association's website indicating that 
"[m]embership to [IADAS] is invite-only," and "[i]f you would like to request an invite or be 
considered for future involvement, please use the form by clicking on the link below." However, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the screenshot reflects the membership requirements for IADAS, 
nor did he show that requesting an invite by filling out a form establishes the requirement of 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Similarly, as it relates to AIVA, the record contains a screenshot from the association's website 
indicating that "[ m ]embership in the AIV A will be opened to qualified individuals to further the 
mission of the AIV A," and members will be invited to join based on: 1) nomination by a founding 
member and approved by the membership committee, 2) nomination by another member and approved 
by the membership committee, 3) nomination by the AIV A as a result of being part of a winning entry 
in an affiliated award or recognition program sanctioned by the AIVA, or 4) applying directly through 
the website to provide credentials and industry related experience for review and approval by the 
membership committee. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that nomination by AIV A members or 
directly applying shows that outstanding achievements are an essential condition for membership, and 
that the membership committee is comprised of recognized national or international experts. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate his membership in associations 
that require outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of the Director for 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 advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
------;::::.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-.::-;::::=-------~ 
12 See letter from._l ____ _.I ~ .... ____ __,I for AIV A. 
6 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level 
do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his 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 he is 
one of the small percentage who has 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). Although the Petitioner documented his 
experience and work in the immersive reality field, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon on his field. 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7