dismissed EB-1A Case: Video Game Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 28, 2025 In Re: 35279802 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an electronics company that develops video games and manufactures gaming systems, 
seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an open world game design lead. The Petitioner seeks to classify 
the Beneficiary 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 Christo '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 )(1 )(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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the 
United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of a person's achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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. 20 I 0) ( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary, a native of France, earned a master's degree in design in South Korea in 2004. From 
2008 to 2022, the Beneficiary worked forl rising to the rank of lead design director, working on 
a number ofvideo game projects including titles in thel Iseries. Since 2022, the Petitioner 
has employed the Beneficiary, first as a lead level designer and then as a game design lead, in 0-1 
nonimmigrant status. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "has been responsible for leading the level 
design team" on a "confidential and undisclosed video game currently in development." 
A. Initial Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally 
recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied sufficient evidence to satisfy 
five of these criteria, pertaining to prizes or awards; published material about the individual; original 
contributions of major significance; leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations or 
establishments; and high remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's evidence met only one criterion, relating to a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that its evidence also meets the other four claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion 
relating to a leading or critical role. We also conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied a second criterion 
relating to high salary or remuneration. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
1. Prizes or A wards 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) calls for documentation of the individual's receipt oflesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner submitted printouts from various websites, listing awards and nominations relating to 
a number of video games released by the Petitioner and by I I Because the regulation requires 
receipt of prizes or awards rather than just nominations, we will consider only actual awards. 
2 
The printouts show the titles of games on which the Beneficiary worked, but do not identify the 
Beneficiary as a recipient of any prize or award. The Petitioner acknowledged as much, asserting: 
"Because video game production is a collaborative endeavor ... , industry awarding bodies do not 
typically recognize the individual game level designer." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that "the record contains no evidence that the 
beneficiary was named a recipient of any award." In response, the Petitioner repeated the assertion 
that the video game industry issues "awards ... to the video game project as a whole" rather than "to 
individual contributors." 
The Director denied the petition, stating that although the Beneficiary participated in award-winning 
projects, the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary personally received any awards as the 
regulation requires. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that the Beneficiary did not individually receive awards, but 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director relied on "a much too stringent interpretation regarding USCIS 
policy guidance." The Petitioner asserts that "the [USCTS] Policy Manual does not contemplate the 
nuances of industries in which individuals are not recognized for solo credit work." 
The USCIS Policy Manual states: "[n ]othing precludes the person from relying on a team award, 
provided the person is one of the recipients of the award." The language of the regulation requires 
"the person's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to the employer's receipt of the awards or 
prizes." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. In other words, 
there is no requirement that an individual be the sole recipient of an award, but the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the individual actually received the award. 
Participation in an award-winning project is not documentation of the individual's receipt of a prize 
or award as the regulation requires. Such participation can receive due consideration as a leading or 
critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which the Director granted in this case, and it may have 
weight in a final merits determination if the case proceeds that far, but the "receipt" requirement is 
intrinsic to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and a petitioner must meet that requirement to satisfy the criterion. 
Regarding the Petitioner's assertion about "industries in which individuals are not recognized for solo 
credit work," several awards documented in the record have named individual recipients. A printout 
from the National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers shows over a hundred individual names, 
and states: "Since its inception, the academy has recognized over 5,580 talented individuals." The 
Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary has been individually named in this way. 
The Beneficiary worked on projects for which the "development team" won collective awards, but the 
Petitioner did not submit documentation directly from the awarding entities to show that he personally 
received awards from those entities, or was named as a recipient as part of those development teams. 
We further note that most of the award information in the record concerns awards for which the 
Beneficiary's games received nominations but not the actual awards. Of the awards that the 
Beneficiary's games received, most of them were not in categories that specifically mention game 
design. 
3 
Significantly, the Petitioner has not submitted first-hand prize documentation such as certificates from 
the awarding entities. Instead, the submitted evidence consists of website printouts. Because the 
Petitioner did not submit copies of the actual prize documentation, we cannot determine whether the 
prizes named individual recipients. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof with regard to this criterion. 
2. Published Material 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) calls for published material 
about the individual in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the individual's work in the 
field for which classification is sought. The evidence must include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation. 
The Petitioner submitted printouts of several online articles. Some of these articles identify the 
Beneficiary by name and title but do not otherwise mention him, while others provide more information 
about the Beneficiary and his work. The articles that focus the most on the Beneficiary and his work 
appeared in Maldito 's Nerds and Access the Animus in 2015. 
In the RFE, the Director stated: "the petitioner has submitted no independent, probative evidence that 
they are in major trade publications or other major media." The Director requested circulation data and 
advised that "there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from open, user-edited Internet 
sites such as Wikipedia, web portals, domains, blogs, social media." 
In response, the Petitioner provided additional information about the publications. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that "the evidence does not show that the posted materials 
were published in professional or major trade publications, or that they were reported in major media." 
The Director repeated the assertion that some online sources are not reliable, and the Director gave 
minimal weight to statistics about "web traffic." The Director also stated that "some articles are not 
substantially about the Beneficiary," and "some articles are not attributed to any author" as the regulation 
reqmres. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director did not give sufficient consideration 
to web traffic data, but the burden remains on the Petitioner to meet all the regulatory requirements, 
including showing that the published material is about the Beneficiary and that it appeared in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner quotes 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l): 
[T]he person and the person's work need not be the only subject of the material; published 
material that covers a broader topic but includes a substantial discussion of the person's 
work in the field and mentions the person in connection to the work may be considered 
material about the person relating to the person's work. 
4 
The language quoted above indicates that "the published material must include a substantial discussion 
of the person's work in the field." The Petitioner has submitted information to support the assertion that 
Chosun Daily and Korea Economic Daily are major South Korean newspapers. The submitted articles 
in those publications, however, did not "highlight" the Beneficiary as claimed. Rather, they listed the 
names and titles ofindividuals scheduled to speak at a 2012 conference. However, the limited information 
of only his name and title, and the names of video game projects, does not constitute "substantial 
discussion of [his] work in the field" to meet what the regulation requires. 
The two submitted articles that discuss the Beneficiary and his work in depth appeared in 2015 in 
Maldito 's Nerds and Access the Animus. The Petitioner did not provide circulation figures for either 
online publication. Instead, the Petitioner provided statistics about their followers on social media 
platforms. The Petitioner has not established the correlation between social media followers and 
circulation, and has not provided comparative evidence to show the numbers of the sites' social media 
followers are consistent with those of major trade publications or other major media. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the articles need not have appeared in major "mainstream media," but 
the regulation specifies professional publications, major trade publications, or other major media. In 
evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication or a major trade publication, we 
consider the intended audience. See generally 6 USC IS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)( 1 ). The language 
and reading level of the submitted articles appear to indicate thatMaldito 's Nerds and Access the Animus 
are aimed at a general audience of game players and enthusiasts, rather than more narrowly tailored to 
professionals within the industry. The focus on video games is consistent with a trade publication, but 
the burden is on the Petitioner to establish that the articles appeared in major trade publications. The 
record is deficient in this regard. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish that the submitted articles meet all the regulatory 
requirements. 
3. Original Contributions 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of the individual's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Director did not dispute the originality of the Beneficiary's contributions, but concluded that the 
Petitioner had not sufficiently established the major significance of those contributions. Therefore, we 
need not address assertions regarding the originality of those contributions. 
Initially, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's "original and versatile contributions to game level 
design are consistently said to have elevated the standard for other professionals in [the Beneficiary's] 
industry as they strive to replicate his level oftechnical precision, realism, and artistic vision." The burden 
is on the Petitioner to corroborate this general claim with evidence to show who made such statements 
about the Beneficiary's contributions, and in what context they did so. This information is critical to 
show that the Beneficiary's work is of major significance to the field. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "made original contributions of major significance to the 
majority of thel game series" and to other games, but the regulation requires field-wide 
5 
major significance, rather than importance to specific projects. Information about the Beneficiary's 
importance to his employer is relevant to the separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which the 
Director granted. The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's contributions have been of major 
significance not only to his employers, however prominent those employers are, but also to the broader 
field of video game design. 
The Petitioner cited "Exhibit D for additional evidence of [the Beneficiary's] contributions." Exhibit D 
consists of published reviews of various games. These reviews do not identify the Beneficiary, specify 
his contributions, or explain how they are of major significance in the field, and the Petitioner does not 
explain how these reviews establish the major significance of the Beneficiary's contributions. The 
Beneficiary's involvement in successful video game projects does not establish the major significance of 
his particular contributions to those projects, particularly when the Petitioner has not shown that the 
reviews draw attention to the Beneficiary's contributions. 
The Petitioner submitted "testimonial letters from industry experts, confirming [the Beneficiary's] 
and extraordinary ability." These individuals have all worked with the Beneficiary, mostly at 
Their statements do not establish that the Beneficiary's original contributions have had major significance 
in the field. 
For example, a narrative director and lead writer atl lstated that the Beneficiary "develop[ ed] novel, 
high quality technologies that ha[ve] revolutionized the field." A former level artist at Istated that 
the Beneficiary's "innovative and extraordinary work ... lays the foundation for further innovation and 
growth within the industry." But these individuals do not support the claimed statements and explain 
how the Beneficiary's work has been significant to the field, rather than to the success of individual 
projects. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for evidence of the Beneficiary's impact on the field. In response, the 
Petitioner stated: 
[I]t is essential to clarify and emphasize the profound impact and significance of [the 
Beneficiary's] contributions to the video game industry. [The Beneficiary's] work ... has 
significantly influenced the standards and practices within the industry. His involvement 
in developing complex and engaging open world game content and environments has 
played a pivotal role in shaping the narrative and gameplay dynamics that define modem 
gaming.... This influence is evident in the widespread adoption of his design principles 
by other game developers and in the industry's overall evolution towards more immersive 
and interactive gaming experiences . 
. . . [The Beneficiary's] contributions ... have been monumental in setting new industry 
standards.... These contributions have helped shape modem gaming conventions and 
have inspired a new generation of game developers to adopts similar innovative 
approaches in their own projects. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of submitting credible evidence to substantiate its claims about the 
Beneficiary's influence and "the widespread adoption ofhis design principles by other game developers." 
The Petitioner's evidence does not rise to this standard. 
6 
The Petitioner's supporting evidence mostly relies on the reviews and letters submitted previously and 
discussed above. The Petitioner also submitted a new letter from a professor at the _____ 
who stated that the Beneficiary "has decisively enriched and advanced the field 
through his innovative original and significant contributions." The writer stated that this opinion is "based 
on the ... testimonial letters" submitted previously. The writer discussed the nature of the Beneficiary's 
work on various games, but praise for the quality of the Beneficiary's work does not explain how it 
"advanced the field." 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's part1c1pation in several highly 
successful video games and franchises. But the Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary's work had "substantial influence beyond [his] employer." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misunderstood "originality in the context of the video 
game industry" by requiring evidence that the Beneficiary's work has been "replicated by other game 
level designers." The Director, however, did not call for such evidence in the denial notice. The Director 
stated that a petitioner can establish a contribution's major significance in different ways, one example of 
which was that "the beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field." 
Also, as noted above, the Petitioner had previously claimed that the Beneficiary "significantly influenced 
the standards and practices within the industry," resulting in "the widespread adoption of his design 
principles by other game developers." The Director did not err by considering whether the record 
supported these claims. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof relating to this criterion. 
For the reasons described above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to 
satisfy the requirements of at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, 
we need not discuss evidence outside those criteria, submitted to establish the required sustained 
national and international acclaim. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We acknowledge the previous approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition on the Beneficiary's behalf 
Nevertheless, the standards for 0-1 status vary by field and are not identical to the standards for immigrant 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner has shown that the 
Beneficiary has held influential positions with major video game developers, we conclude that, in this 
proceeding, the Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirements to establish that the Beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as a person with extraordinary ability. 
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 lesser 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 
7 
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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
The Petitioner asserts that, given the nature of the video game industry, recognition and credit are 
inherently collective rather than individual. The statute and regulations, however, require sustained 
national or international acclaim at an individual level. The Petitioner also asserts that major game makers 
hire only the best in their fields, and therefore the Beneficiary's very employment should be taken as 
evidence of extraordinary ability. A leading or critical role with a distinguished employer has weight, 
recognized under the individual criterion. But such employment is not sufficient evidence of sustained 
national or international acclaim. The record as a whole must contain "extensive documentation" of the 
individual's acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The Petitioner has not shown a degree of recognition of the Beneficiary's work that shows sustained 
national or international acclaim as required by section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. We will therefore 
dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8