dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 5424571 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a software design company , seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a visual designer , as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 matte r is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 immigrant visas available to aliens 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 a 
beneficiary's 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 they 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 beneficiary 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 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner employed the Beneficiary as a creative design producer. The 
Petitioner states: 
Throughout her career, [ the Beneficiary's] work in the highly specialized field of graphic 
design and multimedia advertising has been exemplary as her cutting-edge work has 
attracted international acclaim and amplified the brand visibility of the various companies 
that have employed her. 
Before working for the Petitioner, the Beneficiary worked as a visual designer ..... ± .... o..._r.._l __ ...,l<sometimes 
called I I andl I and then as a senior designer atj l 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary met three of those 
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) 
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) 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Director found that the Beneficiary met criteria (viii) and (ix), but not (i). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the first criterion. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we find that the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary meets the first criterion. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has received a number of awards from internationally 
recognized organizations." The record, however, does not support the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary personally received the awards. 
2 
When the Beneficiary worked atg in 2012, the company's website was nominated for a CSS Design 
Award. While working atl in 2015, the Beneficiary worked on an advertising campaign for a 
financial services company. That campaign received the following recognition: 
• A National Silver Addy award for '._I ____ ___,..------------,.Jr; 
• Honorable mention for a 2015 Shorty Award for ,1 f; and 
• Nomination for a Wehby Award for ~-------~ 
Of the four items claimed above, only one is actually an award. A nomination means only that the project 
was considered for an award. Likewise, honorable mention indicates that the project was a strong 
candidate for an award that ultimately went to a different contender. Nominations and honorable 
mentions can be significant accolades, depending on the circumstances, but would be best considered in 
the context of a final merits determination if the case had proceeded that far. But there is a more 
immediate and fundamental issue that the Petitioner must overcome before we can weigh the significance 
of the nominations and the honorable mention. 
The submitted award materials do not show the Beneficiary's name. The Petitioner asserts: "As is 
standard design and advertising industry practice ... , individual creatives are not always credited in press 
releases of awards given for finished products. However, [ the Beneficiary's] contributions and roles were 
indispensable ... in bringing these awarded projects to fruition." 
Our principal concern is not whether the Beneficiary received credit "in press releases," as phrased by the 
Petitioner; the regulatory language requires documentation that the Beneficiary received prizes or awards. 
Involvement with award-winning projects does not, by itself: satisfy this requirement. The focus should 
be on the alien's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to her employer's receipt of the awards or 
prizes. USCIS 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 
ADI 1-14, 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
The Director requested "additional evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of ... prizes or awards," with 
emphasis to show that the Beneficiary herself must have received the prizes or awards. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that, in the Beneficiary's field, "awards are nearly always presented to 
the Design team and not to the individual," and asked the Director to take into account "the frequency at 
which [the Beneficiary] has been on teams that have won or been nominated for awards." Regarding the 
latter point, the Petitioner had previously identified one award-winning campaign, and a second campaign 
that earned a nomination. The Petitioner implied the existence of other such campaigns, stating that the 
awards discussed are 'just a sampling of the honors [the Beneficiary] has received," but the Petitioner did 
not identify or document any further awards or nominations. 
The Petitioner referred again to "awards received by [the Beneficiary]," but provided no documentary 
evidence to show what, if anything, the Beneficiary herself received from any awarding entity. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Beneficiary "was not the direct recipient of the prize or 
award." On appeal, the Petitioner states that has "provided ample evidence of [ the Beneficiary's] awards" 
3 
and maintains that "in the design and advertising industry ... creative individuals are typically not ... 
individually named for awards received for their creative productions." 
The record shows that the Addy Awards go to agencies rather than to individuals. The record does not 
show that individual members of the creative teams rrsonalll receive awards or recognition from the 
awarding entity. Collective recognition afforded to does not distinguish betwee~ I 
employees or single out the Beneficiary for recognition. 1 
After-the-fact assurances that the Beneficiary was a principal contributor to the award-winning project 
are not documentation of the Beneficiary's receipt of prizes or awards. In this respect, we acknowledge 
that a former vice president and associate creative director atl I stated that the Petitioner was "one 
of the main designers on the team" that "garnered several awards," and the president ofi • lstated that 
the Beneficiary created the redesigned website that earned a nomination for a "CCS [sic] Design Award." 
But the record highlights a limitation of such letters. 
As the Petitioner asserts, most of the award and nomination materials in the record refer to companies 
rather than to individual creators. But the documentation from CSS does include the name, twice, of the 
"designer/developer" who created the nominated website design. The name shown is not the 
Beneficiary's name, and the president ofLJ did not acknowledge or explain this discrepancy. 
The record contains no documentation of the Beneficiary's receipt of any nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had satisfied the two remaining regulatory criteria, but those are 
not sufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Because further discussion of those findings 
cannot alter the outcome of the appeal, we reserve those issues. 
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 that the Beneficiary has earned the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 Had the case proceeded to a final merits determination, this would have been a particularly significant point. A collective 
award cannot directly result in acclaim for the anonymous individuals who did the work that resulted in that award, because 
there is no public recognition or acknowledgment involved that would bring those individuals to the attention of others. 
4