dismissed EB-1A Case: Speculative Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 8, 2024 In Re: 32453875 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a speculative 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. § 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
established receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied seven of these criteria, but the Director determined 
the Petitioner fulfilled only the artistic display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he meets four additional categories of evidence. 1 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 2 
The Petitioner initially presented a certificate stating that he "received a Student Runner Up honor in 
the Speculative Design category in the 20201 IAwards program for the project I I 
_________ He also provided information from the _________ website 
indicating that he joined the as a "Desi n Researcher in Residence" in 2019. 3 In addition, the 
Petitioner submitted a' Researcher's Award" certificate stating that 
he "made an excellent presentation at the Symposium 2008." 4 The Director's 
1 In his appeal brief, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings that he did not meet the membership criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the original contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and 
therefore he has not overcome the Director's determination on these issues. We consider the Petitioner's prior eligibility 
claims not raised or contested on appeal to be abandoned. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of0-
R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 The information from the states: "The Designer in Residence is a competitive program in which an emerging 
international talent in design is invited to spend a period of time at the There they work jointly with I 
______ students and staff to develop new signature pieces in response to the context of and to the 
research expertise of the The resulting work is then exhibited at I. ..." 
4 The record indicates that the Petitioner was one of three recipients of this award in 2009 and that other categories included 
"Best Paper Award," "Research Society Award," and "Special Award." Regarding the "Young Researcher's Award," 
information from thel Istates that it is "presented to persons who have shown excellent content at 
2 
decision explained that the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that "these awards are 
recognized nationally or internationally" in his field. The Petitioner does not contest Director's 
conclusion relating to these awards on appeal and therefore he has not overcome the determination 
that they do not meet requirements of this criterion. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, 
e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that he is the recipient of a 2008 which 
he maintains meets the requirements of this criterion. 5 He presentedinformation from the 
website indicating that he and two others received a in the "Innovation" category for their 
According to the "Results of the I I 
,..._ 2008," 1,067 items of 3,023 total screened items received I I in 2008, including 
"39 items" in the Innovation category. 6 The I I website also discussed "special" awards with a 
higher level of distinction than the Petitioner's honor. 7 For example, this information states: 
The special awards awarded include thel I Award Best 15, which include the 
candidates for the I I Grand Award, together with the I I 
Sustainable Design Award andl !Life-Scape Design Award .... 
Thel IAward Best 15 refers to the IGrand Award candidates and 
Gold Award winners. When the I Grand Award recipient is 
decided on November 6, the remaining 14 nominees of the Best 15 will be designated 
I IGold A ward winners. 
The Petitioner also submitted articles discussing others' receipt of al lor thel Iprogram at 
large in online publications such as ZME Science, Design Boom, and Dezeen, but this documentation 
does not demonstrate the significance of his specific Innovation inin the field of endeavor or 
indicate that his 2008 award has received media coverage or attention that rises to the level of national 
or international recognition. Without further evidence regarding its national or international 
significance in his field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his Innovation is ais a nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
the Symposium sponsored by the Society. Winners must be under the age of 35 ... and have not 
previously received this award in the past. The presentations subject to the award are made at thel I 
Symposium held in the previous year." 
5 The record indicates that the IAward is operated by the 
6 Other 2008 winners included 357 recipients in the "Human body and life" category, 273 recipients in the "Industry 
and society" category, 386 recipients in the "Mobility and networks" categ01y, and 12 recipients in the "collaboration with 
Design Excellence Award" category. The program typically bestows more than one thousand awards each year. For 
example, the Petitioner presented an article, entitled I I which states that "[a]pproximately 
37,000I IAwards have been given" over the past several decades. 
7 The record does not indicate that the Petitioner was honored among the "Best 15" and that he received either a 
"Grand Award" or "Gold Award." 
3 
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). 
USCIS first determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. 8 The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the 
employer's work or another organization and that organization's work. 9 USCIS then determines 
whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major 
media publication. 10 
Here, the Petitioner provided a 2019 article about him in Works hip, a job and project search platform 
specializing in freelance and side jobs. He contends on appeal that "Workship, which attracts 480.4K 
monthly website visitors, is a major media outlet that has published an exclusive feature on [the 
Petitioner]." As evidence that Workship is a form of major media, the Petitioner submitted information 
from Sirnilarweb.corn indicating that the magazine's website (Goworkship.corn) had 480.4K "Total 
Visits Last 3 Months" with a "Global Rank" of 157,659, a "Country Rank" of 10,101, and a "Category 
Rank" of 40. The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the total trimonthly visits to 
Goworkship.corn and the rankings from Sirnilarweb.corn render Works hip a form of major media. 
The Petitioner also presented a 2020 article, entitled 
posted on Note.corn, a social publishing platform. He argues on appeal that this article and 
Sirnilarweb.corn data relating to Note.corn were "not reviewed properly" and that the platform "is a 
major media outlet." While the article briefly references the Petitioner's work, it is not about him. 
Instead, the article summarizes the author's observations relating to See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, No. 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ, 2008 WL 10697512, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). In addition, the Petitioner 
submitted information from Sirnilarweb.corn indicating that Note.corn had 130.2M "Total Visits Last 
3 Months" with a "Global Rank" of 389, a "Country Rank" of 33, and a "Category Rank" of 2. While 
the Petitioner has offered website traffic data for Note.corn, the record does not indicate the number 
of visitors who specifically viewed ________________ or the significance 
of the article's placement on the platform. Without further information and evidence, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the article was in major media. 
The Petitioner also submitted material from D-labkit.ac.jp, Export FM, Engadget, tweets, and a blog, 
but his appeal brief does not contest Director's conclusions relating to this other material. Therefore, 
he has not overcome the determination that it does not meet requirements of this criterion. Again, an 
issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of 0-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
8 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
9 Id. 
10Id. 
4 
The Petitioner submitted evidence showing that he has authored scholarly articles in professional 
publications. Accordingly, we agree with the Petitioner that he meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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) . 
To qualify under this criterion, a petitioner must show that they performed in a leading or critical role 
for an organization, establishment, or a division or department of an organization or establishment. 
For a leading role, users looks at whether the evidence establishes that the person is (or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. 11 A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish that a role is (or was), in fact, leading.12 For a critical role, 
users looks at whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. 13 A petitioner must also demonstrate that 
the organization or establishment, or the department or division for which they hold or held a leading 
or critical role, has a distinguished reputation. 14 Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines 
"distinguished" as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence" or "befitting an eminent 
person." 15 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he has performed in a leading or critical role fo 
_______________ 16 The Director determined that has a 
distinguished reputation, but concluded that the Petitioner's evidence relating to ___ 
________ ..... was insufficient to show these companies have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of information about these three companies 
"from their own respective websites and articles which mention them," but noted that the record lacked 
evidence demonstrating they "have distinguished reputations as compared with other related entities." 
The Director further explained that some media attention does not necessarily demonstrate a 
company's eminence, distinction, or excellence. 
Regarding the reputation of Ithe Petitioner contends on appeal that "major media outlets" 
such as ZDNet Japan and erunchbase "have featured I I thereby confirming its 
distinguished reputation." The 2021 article in ZDNet Japan (at Japan.zdnet.com/release) is a "press 
release provided by PR Times," a Japanese public relations company. 17 The conclusion of the article 
states: "This press release contains information posted by the company that made the announcement." 
The record also includes a summary of I I company information from erunchbase, a 
11 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
12 Id. 
13 Id. 
14 Id. 
15 Id. 
16 The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his role for these organizations rather than a division or 
department within these organizations . 
17 This press release discusses a collaboration between to "launch the 
Another article, entitled Iappears on 
and promotes their online training program. This information, however, does not demonstrate that __ 
distinguished reputation. 
5 
company that provides information about businesses. The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated 
that the self-promotional material in ZDNet Japan and the I Icompany profile available 
through Crunchbase's business search engine are sufficient to show I I has earned a 
distinguished reputation. 
With respect to the reputation ofI I the Petitioner asserts on appeal that "major media outlets" 
such as ASCII and Nikkan "have featured I I thereby confirming this organization's 
distinguished reputation." The 2019 article in ASCII, entitled 
1 Iis an interview of __CEO discussing her company's novel 
I I recruiting support tool. Likewise, the 2019 article in Nikkan discusses I I launch of 
its "first product, I I and expectations relating to its popularity such as the company president's 
goal of having "1,000people registered by the end of March." While the articles in ASCII and Nikkan 
describe and its features, they do not indicate the level of commercial success of the product 
or otherwise show thatl Ihas achieved a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the reputation I the Petitioner submitted articles from websites such as 
Allaboutcircuits.com, Technical.ly, Medium.com, and Technicianonline.com. 18 For example, the 
articles in Allaboutcircuits.com and Technical.ly, entit led 
and 
discuss accelerator projects in New York involving CEO. These articles discuss 
I products, but they do not indicate the economic scale of the company's customer base or that 
the company has otherwise garnered a distinguished reputation in the industry. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the distinguished reputation ofl____ 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that they meet the requirements of this 
criterion. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate 
arguments regarding whether the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for each of these 
three companies. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner contends that he "has played a critical role for the highly distinguished ____ 
by leading its most important projects and thereby impacting the overall organization in major 
ways." 19 As it relates to the Petitioner's leading or critical role for I 20the record 
includes an October 2023 letter from T-K-, "Managing Designer , Design Innovation Group Leader" 
atl I stating: 
Since 2019, I have been ... leading the Design Innovation Group within the I 
I I Design Center. ... Additionally, I lead the "envisioning studio," a respected 
18 The Petitioner's appeal brief does not provide arguments or point to evidence relating to !reputation. An issue 
not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. 
19 We agree with the Director that the record shows has a distinguished reputation. 
20 The Petitioner provided information indicating that "is a Japanese multinational technology company 
based in with a global presence in 49 countries and nearly 40,000 employees." 
6 
research and design organization at _______ comprised of five highly 
skilled designers. 
I initiated a project at the envisioning studio ... to create a post-pandemic business 
strategy based on observed signs of social changes. However, we faced challenges in 
envisioning post-COVID scenarios and stakeholder engagement, which led us to invite 
[the Petitioner] to join our project. ... I contacted [the Petitioner] directly and signed 
a contract between I land him. 
[The Petitioner] joined our project from May to October 2020 and led us to co-create 
scenarios of a post-pandemic society and I lrole in it. He conducted 
ten weekly two-hour Zoom workshop sessions with designers at the envisioning studio 
in Japan, utilizing the online whiteboard platform Miro for collaborative discussions .... 
[The Petitioner] was exceptionally skilled at using post-its and illustrations to select 
essential information, plan critical activities within a time frame, and lead to a feasible 
landing point. ... He led the entire project without any problems or delays and gave 
us the confidence to tackle the uncertainty and envision positive futures during the 
pandemic. 
In collaboration with [the Petitioner], designers at the envisioning studio visualized 
nine possible socio-technical scenarios for a post-pandemic world from 2025 to 2052 
and _____ future product concepts in each worldview. This unique and 
outstanding deliverables are now published on our envisioning studio's website . . . 
and [ the Petitioner's] name is also credited for his critical and irreplaceable contribution 
to this project. 
T-K-'s statements indicate that the Petitioner played a role in facilitating "collaborative discussions" 
at "ten weekly two-hour Zoom workshop sessions" during a six-month project within the company's 
six-person envisioning studio, but the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he performed in a leading 
or critical role for ____ and its nearly 40,000 employees. While T-K- further asserts that 
"[t]he project was also shared internally within thel I Design Center, and the tools and 
activities that [the Petitioner] provided us with have been used in subsequent projects as valuable 
company assets," his letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's materials have significantly 
affected the _____ Design Center or "have been used in subsequent projects" throughout 
other parts of the company. 21 Nor does T-K-'s letter offer specific examples or otherwise contain 
detailed and probative information to support his claims that the Petitioner's "work has made a lasting 
impact" and "completely transformed our organization, leading [the Petitioner] to play a critical role 
for ____ overall." 
21 T-K-'s letter does not specifically identify the "subsequent projects" in which the Petitioner's materials were used. 
7 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where 
his role fit within the overall hierarchy ofl Ito demonstrate a leading role for the 
company. 22 Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the Petitioner has contributed to the company in 
a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of its corporate mission or business 
operations. 23 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
While the Petitioner meets the authorship of scholarly articles and artistic display criteria, he has not 
established he satisfies the criteria relating to awards, published material, or leading or critical role. 
Because the Petitioner's inability to meet three of the initial criteria is dispositive of his appeal, we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
We therefore reserve this issue. 24 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 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. 
22 The record includes a copy of the "Outsourcing Contract Agreement" between the Petitioner and 
ThisThis "Outsourcing Contract Agreement" supports the Director's statement that the Petitioner performed "contract 
work with the company on a project but not as an employee." We therefore disagree with the Petitioner's claim on appeal 
that the Director's statement was "an error of fact and highly misleading." 
23 For example, the Petitioner has not shown that his specific project materials have significantly increased _ 
product sales or business operations' efficiency. 
24 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 24, 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
8 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
9