dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Effects

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2023 In Re: 25983327 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a visual effects artist and animator, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. 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 did not 
establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability by meeting at least three of the ten criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner appealed the decision, the decision was withdrawn, 
and the matter was remanded for entry of a new decision. The Director reevaluated the record and 
denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner meets at least 
three of the ten criteria to establish eligibility for the requested classification. The Petitioner filed a 
second appeal, and we dismissed the appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they 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 prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner asserts that we incorrectly applied the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the criterion 
for EB-1 eligibility requiring evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In our prior appeal decision, which we incorporate by reference, we noted that for a leading role, we 
look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is ( or was) a leader within the organization or 
establishment or a division or department thereof For a critical role, we look 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. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 (appendix), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. We noted that the Petitioner asserted that he had played critical and 
leading roles in a number of productions for client companies on high level media projects for major 
corporations; we further noted the letters in the record containing details about the Petitioner's digital 
modeling work on these projects, including a video forl IWe determined that the evidence 
did not establish that his contracted roles on these projects were leading or critical for any organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation. We stated that individual campaigns and projects are not 
divisions or departments of an organization or establishment. Further, we concluded that the Petitioner 
had not established that his roles, in particular, were critical to the organizations or to departments or 
divisions thereof We additionally noted that the Petitioner submitted no evidence to address whether the 
advertising agencies have a distinguished reputation; instead, it improperly relied on the prominence of 
some of the agencies' clients. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that we erred in excluding from consideration the Petitioner's work 
as part of a team, including I Ithat created a social media campaign for~------~ 
2 
.______________ ___. was designated as a finalist for a Shorty Award in the Mobile 
Campaign category. 1 Further, the Petitioner also indicates that we did not ro erly consider the 
Petitioner's efforts working through his employer, a visual effects 
studio, on an ad campaign sponsored by the~ ___. Olympic Committee . ._____. a creative agency, 
won a Silver Marketing Award for Craft in the Cinematography category from I I 
Communications' Marketing A wards, and I I and the Petitioner are among many individuals and 
businesses credited on the award's website2 for their participation in developing the project. 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts on motion that we ignored his request to consider whether his efforts 
on these projects that resulted in awards constituted a critical role. We disagree. Our previous decision 
clearly articulated that, based on the evidence in the record, his efforts on these projects did not 
constitute a critical role. 
The Petitioner also asserts on motion that we improperly discounted the Petitioner's role atl
I lbecause he was not part of a division or department of an organization or estab~l-is_h_m_e_n_t_.. 
The Petitioner states that the focus should be on whether he "played a critical role, and whether the 
contribution resulted in a significant outcome to the organization." He states that the term 
"organization" in the criterion is not strictly defined and may be interpreted, according to Merriam­
Webster, 3 as an "administrative and functional structure (such as a business or a political party)." The 
Petitioner also states that the term "organization" may be interpreted, according to the Cambridge 
Dictionary, 4 as "a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose." On 
that basis he contends that his contributions to I I should be recognized as 
evidence of his critical roles for organizations. 
Our previous decision did not "discount" the Petitioner's roles at Notably, we 
'-----------' 
addressed the Petitioner's work on various projects and stated: 
... on any given project, the Petitioner was part of a creative team that involved varying 
numbers of other artists and technicians performing assigned roles. The Petitioner has not 
established that his roles, in particular, were critical to the organizations or to departments 
or divisions thereof Participation in a successful project is not automatically or 
presumptively a critical role for the organization, or a department or division of the 
organization, that undertook the project. 
A person's performance in a role determines whether the role is (or was) critical. We determined that 
the Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof with regard to whether any of his roles were critical. The 
evidence does not provide insight into how and in what manner the Petitioner's role as either a visual 
affects artist or animator was critical to a definable operational component or outcome of any specific 
organization. Thus, regardless of the definition of "organization" utilized, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently established his critical role in one. 
1 As explained in our prior decision, the Petitioner had previously acknowledged that thd campaign did not 
become a finalist for a Shorty A ward until after the petition's filing date. A petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(6)(1 ). 
2 See https://marketingawards.strategyonline.ca/winners/winner.__ __________ __. accessed July 31, 
2023. 
3 See https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organization. 
4 See https: //dictionary. cam bridge. org/us/ dictionary/ english/ organization. 
I
3 
Further, as noted above, our previous decision addressed the question of whether the agencies that the 
Petitioner worked for could be considered to have distinguished reputations; we determined that the 
Petitioner had not submitted evidence to address that possibility. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. The Petitioner's current contention is that.__ _______ __.have distinguished reputations 
based on their "award winning" campaigns. However, similar to the deficiency related to his asserted 
critical roles, the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof relating to distinguished reputation. A 
distinguished reputation cannot be implied by association but must instead be established with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Id. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner has not shown 
that our previous decision misinterpreted the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As we 
concluded previously, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Finally, we advised in our prior decision that although not required by Kazarian, we reviewed the 
record in the aggregate and determined that it does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has 
established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. While the Petitioner 
has had some success providing image modeling for promotional use by prominent clients, we 
concluded that he had not shown that the recognition of his work rises to the required level of sustained 
national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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, we determined that the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 
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). On motion, the Petitioner has not established that 
this determination was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that it was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In the present case, we folly reviewed the evidence of record and rendered our previous decision based 
on that evidence in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and USCIS policy. On motion to 
reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4