dismissed EB-1A Case: Multimedia Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6725482 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a multimedia 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 the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three . 
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)(l)(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 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates his most recent employment as a lead product designer atl I I I inl I from February 2017 until the date when this petition was filed 
on January 29, 2018. 1 The evidence provides that the Petitioner designed the poster series I I 
~---~(2010[, wrre and directed the short filml 1(2012), and designed the interactive 
costume installation (2015). 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and display at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The evidence shows that the Petitioner performed as a judge for the I I 
Youth Micro Film Contest 2015 and th Micro Video Competition 2016). In addition, the 
record indicates that'------.-----.-----' was exhibited at the 2010 Design~rs 
1
week
11 
International Design Exhibition, was displayed at 1 2015, and 
was screened at several film festivals, including the 2017....._ ____ __,Film Festival in 
Therefore, we agree with the Director's findings regarding the judging and display criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets two additional criteria, relating to published materials 
in major media and leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 2 After 
reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
1 See the Petitioner's Form T-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. The record also contains 
documentation indicating the Petitioner was approved for F-1 nonimmigrant classification to attend! I between 
July 2015 and July 2020, and optional practical training (OPT) between May 2016 and May 2018. 
2 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner initially submitted evidence related to lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) but did not satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner does not 
contest this issue on appeal and therefore we deem it to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 
(BIA 2009). 
2 
The Petitioner maintains that he satisfies this criterion based on four articles, and evidence relating to 
www.qq.com, www.sohu.com, www.163.com, and www.sina.com.cn. The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because the translations accompanying those documents did 
not include the required certification by the translator, and, therefore, the evidence was not sufficient 
to show that the articles are about the Petitioner and his work. On appeal, the Petitioner provides new 
translations of those articles, which establish that the articles are about the Petitioner and his 
1
ork} 
focusing on his career, including the screening ofc=J at several film festivals, the exhibition of 
inl land his work withl I and I I 
However, the record does not establish that the media in which these articles were published can be 
considered either professional or major trade publications or another type of major media. For 
example, the Petitioner submitted information on country ranking and website traffic regarding 
www.qq.com, www.sohu.com, www.163.com, and www.sina.com.cn., internet portals which are 
popular in China. However, the aforementioned articles were posted on specific webpages within 
those portals, such as, ln.qq.com, edu.163.com, and news.sina.com.cn, about which information was 
not provided. 3 Here, the record does not include information regarding the specific media on which 
these articles were published, and they are therefore not qualifying under this criterion. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner argres eligibility for this criterion based on his roles with I I j I I I and As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or 
was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, 
leading. 5 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in 
a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishment's activities. 
It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether 
the role is or was critical. 6 
3 In addition. although the translation of the article from Sahu.com does not include the article's source, a review of the 
article using Google Translate indicates it was posted on the China Education Information webpage, about which 
information was not provided. 
4 We note that the record is vague and inconsistent re~arding the Petitioner's employment in the United States. While the 
Petitioner's work with D. I I, and I appears to have occurred during his period of OPT, 
none of the authors of the recommendation letters from those companies provides the dates of the Petitioner's employment. 
In addition, although the Petitioner listed on the Form T-485 that he was employed with~between February 2017 and 
the date when the petition was filed in January 2018, the Petitioner did not list employment withl I or I I 
I I. rather, lhe included work with additional employers inl 11 I between May 2015 and June 
2016 and between April and December 2016. 
5 See 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 ADI 1-14 10 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
6 Id. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that as a lead multimedia designer he "played a critical role in 
launching I l" c=J's leadership assessment tool. He also argues that as a senior product 
desi ner and art director au I he was "instrumental to the redesign and launch" of the 
L...-.......--JF--'r"""e...,wards program, and "helped to optimize and launch several iOS and Android applications of 
the~_~mobile application." Further, the Petitioner asserts that as a user experience lead and product 
designer with I I he played a critical role working "to help create a new web-based project, 
I ~"7 Although the Petitioner references recommendation letters which confirm his work on 
those projects, the letters do not contain detailed information demonstrating that he performed in a 
leading or critical role as a whole. 8 
First, the Petitioner provided organizational charts to establish the Petitioner's positions within the 
overall hierarchy of the above companies. The Petitioner provided a screenshot fromc=J s staff 
directory, showing that the Petitioner works in the Product Management Department (PM) within 
c=Js Global Shared Services Division (GSS). The Petitioner also submitted a partial organizational 
chart, not bearing any indicia that~prepared the chart, that indicates that GSS is one of twenty­
two divisions withinc=J The organizational chart froml I shows that the Petitioner 
worked within one of the company's ten departments. Further, regarding.__ __ ~-~----' the 
record includes a chart that only reflects the hierarchy for a single project team, the business 
unit. The chart does not reflect at what leadership level the petitioner operated within~--~ 
I I. Based on this evidence, the Petitioner did not show that his positions within the overall 
hierarchy of the above companies was such that he has established the leading nature of his roles. 
In addition, the submitted documentation also does not establish that the Petitioner contributed to the 
companies in a way that was significant to their success or standing in the field. For instanceJ I 
I I general manager of c=J' s PM, indicates that he is the founder of I I and that the 
Petitioner was the lead multimedia designer onl l He states that the Petitioner "independently 
created ourl I Series" which he describes as providing "key metrics for measuring the 
success and progress of our clients." He also asserts that "the critical role [the Petitioner] has played 
in the success of I" )' is demonstrated by the fact Human Resource Executive magazine named 
I I one of its top HR products of the year, and the sale of "hundreds of units" ofl I 
generating "over a million dollar[s] in total revenue." His letter is accompanied by a copy of the 
recognition certificate given to~ for 'Top HR Product - I I" However, D 
I I did not point to any specific documentation or evidentiary~n support of his claim 
regarding the sales figures for I I or that increased sales of l___J or its recognition by 
Human Resource Executive magazine is attributable to the Petitioner. Further, his letter does not 
describe the manner in which the Petitioner's role as the lead multimedia designer on the I I 
tool resulted in the success or standing o~~-~~s a whole. 
7 On appeal, the Petitioner referenced unpublished AAO decisions that purportedly support his eligibility claims. While 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCTS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (providing that this is one criterion where letters from 
individuals with personal knowledge of the significance of the alien's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful to 
USCIS officers in making this determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that 
specifically addresses how the alien's role for the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
4 
~ing the Petitioner's employment with I I he presented a letter froml 
L__J a former senior manager at I !loyalty program, who states that the 
Petitioner "led two application interface and user experience redesigns for Android phones." He 
asserts that the Petitioner's "critical impact on our work" is shown by an increase in rating ofl I 
from 3.5 "prior to the release of [the Petitioner's] changes" to a "peak" rating of 4.2 "[a] few weeks 
after the newly-developed version," which he claims "involves thousands of people, if not more, 
changing their minds." I ldid not point to any specific documentation or evidentiary exhibits 
in support of this claim. The Petitioner has not established the claimed fact with unsupported 
testimonial evidence alone. I I, a former senior manager of1 I states 
that the Petitioner's ability as a design leader was "critical" to the success of the ~ redesign 
because his "handling of all of the Android interface's redesign freed up all of the staff that would 
otherwise be dedicated to the prrject."11 1 and I I do not describe the manner in 
which the Petitioner's role on the redesign projects reflects a role equally critical to the success 
of~-----~ as a whole. On appeal, the Petitioner, through counsel, asserts that the evidence 
demonstrated "the financial benefit his product has brought to the company." However, the authors 
of the aforementioned letters do not state that a financial benefit resulted from the Petitioner's work 
related td I Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). 
Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include 
affidavits and declarations. 
Regarding I I the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I the company's CEO, 
who states that the company is "a foll-time programing boot camp." He indicates that he has known 
the Petitioner "for a few years," and that he met the Petitioner "through a product design project for 
my company's then-new web-based project,! I He states that he delegated to the Petitioner 
"the planning, management, and leadership of all design phases" and that in "third-party user-tests 
... [the Petitioner's] designs had the highest ratings available." He asserts that "[a] lot of the success 
of our products has been due to the critical role of [the Petitioner] in designing our products." D I I does not describe, however, the manner in which the Petitioner's role for the I !project 
reflects a role critical to the success of I I as a whole, and the record does not contain 
evidence which would corroborate his claims about any success the company's products have enjoyed 
that is attributable to the Petitioner. 
Here, the organizational charts provided did not establish that the Petitioner's positions within the 
overall hierarchy of the above companies was such that he has established the leading nature of his 
roles. The submitted documentation also does not establish that the Petitioner contributed to the 
companies in a way that was significant to their success or standing in the field. The lack of specific 
information does not provide probative information to demonstrate the Petitioner's leading or critical 
roles for the above-referenced organizations. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not establish the distinguished reputation of I l 9 Although D 
I rs recommendation letter provided brief background information, the Petitioner did not offer 
any supporting documentation to corroborate the claim. For example, promotional material from0 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at 10-11 ( defining Merriam-Webster ·s Dictiona1y definition of 
"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
5 
~-~I indicates that it was founded in 2013 "to teach students the skills they need to become 
successful app developers" and build "their iOS or Android portfolios," and that it "pioneered" the 
approach that "enables students to work as interns on real projects." Again, the Petitioner did not 
submit corroborating evidence, nor did he demonstrate the significance of those statements. The 
Petitioner did not include evidence, for example, showing the field's view ofl I how its 
reputation compares to similar establishments, or how its successes or accomplishments relate to 
others, signifying a distinguished reputation consistent with the regulatory criterion. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that he meets 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 finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and 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). 
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. 
6