sustained EB-1A Case: Technology Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 6, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a technology design director, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" 
in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
submitted documentation meeting only two initial evidence criteria, when evidence satisfying at 
least three criteria is required. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us and submitted additional evidence and a brief. He indicated 
that he has satisfied at least three initial evidence criteria and has shown that he has extraordinary 
ability as a technology design director. After an initial review, we questioned aspects of the 
documentation presented and issued a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal. The Petitioner now 
submits a timely response and a satisfactory explanation. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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, 
Matter of D-G-
(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 the 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that users examines "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a technology design director. The Director found the Petitioner did not submit the 
necessary initial evidence because he did not provide documentation satisfying at least three of the 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). Upon de novo review, we find that the record 
contains evidence meeting at least three of these criteria. In addition, in a final merits determination, 
the Petitioner demonstrated that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. The materials must relate to the individual's work in the .field for which 
1 As the Petitioner meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, we do not have occasion to address additional criteria 
claimed by the Petitioner. The relevant documentation provided under these criteria was examined and considered, 
however, in the final merits determination. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, 
and any necessary translation. 
The Director found that, although the Petitioner provided several articles, none meets this criterion. 
He indicated that ' which appeared in 
did not qualify because it is not primarily about the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states that the material need not be primarily about him to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The web-based article in question features a different page for each of the 75 individuals chosen. 
The Petitioner appears at The posting shows a picture of him, his title of design director 
at and the rationale for his selection. The explanation includes details about his current 
role, what is unique about his approach, and his accomplishments. While the article is not solely 
about the Petitioner, it does not merely mention his name or one of his projects. The piece contains 
sufficient substantive information about the Petitioner and his work that we consider it to be about 
him. In addition, the Petitioner provided information showing that is the most read 
business news website, with 103,300,000 monthly visits and 63,900,000 monthly unique visits. This 
source therefore qualifies as major media. For these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has satisfied 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which class(fication is sought. 
The Director found the Petitioner met this criterion. The Petitioner provided documentation showing 
that he served as a judge for 1) the created to "recognize the unique and resonant 
nature of the European Internet community," 2) the 2011 contest sponsored by the 
and 3) the given for creative 
· excellence. We therefore agree that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director found the Petitioner met this criterion. The Petitioner provided documentation showing 
that he served as Design Director at a company named as one of 
advertising and marketing in 2015. He demonstrated his position as head of the 
design department with responsibilities ranging from hiring and training, to operations and work 
process flow. We therefore agree that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
I 
B. Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the necessary initial evidence, we conduct a final merits 
determination that considers the entire record in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated extraordinary 
ability as a technology design director by showing that he enjoys a level 
of expertise indicating he is one of a small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-
endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. Based on the filings, the Petitioner has made the requisite showing. 
The Petitioner has provided evidence of continued recognition of his abilities across numerous 
companies and industry groups. He has shown accolades and awards resulting from his efforts. His 
speaking engagements and judging at competitions also serve as acknowledgements of his 
accomplishments. The Petitioner provided letters from past and present colleagues, clients, and 
leaders in the industry. All speak extremely highly of the Petitioner's work and abilities as a design 
director and credit his work with awards received by his employers. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner was featured on list of the 
technology, compiled in 2013. He is currently Design Director at a 
online marketing company. named on its list of the 
_ advertising and marketing in 2015.2 A letter from CEO, 
m 
based 
discusses the importance of the Petitioner 's role in the company. explained that the 
Petitioner is in charge of the design department, that he developed the workflow for its creative 
process, and that he manages project budgets of up to $10 million. Copies of contracts show the 
Petitioner signs major documents on behalf of also noted that the Petitioner 
leads several events at the company, such as a regularly occurring expert panel. 
Prior to joining the Petitioner worked at a marketing agency in 
Chairman of wrote that the Petitioner led 
the strategy and execution of several very important campaigns, including those for and 
The Petitioner 's work on the campaign earned the company recognition at the 
2011 
in advertising. 
new business. 
an industry awards competition designed to honor creativity and excellence · 
also stated that the Petitioner helped generate over one million dollars in 
From 2005 to 2010, the Petitioner worked for an English online digital marketing company. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that is hired by major businesses, such as the for 
marketing and brand management. A letter from founder of states that the Petitioner 
was a central figure in a number of award winning projects and campaigns, such as those for 
and the 
The honors received by these campaigns are detailed below. 
was a 
won a 
was a 
winner and a honoree due to two of the Petitioner's campaigns. In 2007, 
in the banking/bill paying category for In 2010, The 
honoree in the online film and video category. The are given 
2 In 2014 had a circulation of 806,367 and was deemed 
2014 Winners Announced ," 
at the 
See ' (May I, 
2014), 
A copy of the announcement has been printed and incorporated into the record . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-
for excellence on the Internet, issued by the 
as judged by over one thousand industry experts in multiple categories. are 
hailed as the Internet's' '3 and 2016 winners include 
and 4 
credits the Petitioner with conceiving the design for the 
website. An article from "how" section contains the Petitioner's explanation for the 
creative process behind a Flash app on the website. In 2011, the site won a in the 
sports website category. are issued by the same body responsible for the 
and focus on European excellence on the Internet. Lastly, the 
website won the for in 2011.5 
The Petitioner's work also made a in the category at the 2008 
for the game developed for a client company, 
On the website, the Petitioner is credited as a designer for the game. 
These awards were founded in 1986 and state they are ' of its 
kind honoring advertising in the realms of film, television, print, and radio." In 2014, the 
competition had 14,817 entries from 80 countries. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of recognition of his work by major industry groups in 
national and international level competitions. The consistent acclaim garnered by his projects 
suggests that the Petitioner's ability in technology design far exceeds that of others in the field. As 
the Petitioner has transitioned from employer to employer, accolades have followed. This history of 
recognition shows the Petitioner's place among the small percentage of those who has risen to the 
top of the field of endeavor. 
As noted in the initial evidence analysis above, the Petitioner has also served as a judge for the 
the 2011 contest sponsored by the and the 
for creative excellence. In addition, the Petitioner's status as a leader in the 
industry is demonstrated through his involvement as an expert panelist for conferences and speaker 
series, such as an event with past speakers that include heads of design at 
and A letter from founder, confirms that its 
sponsoring organization, invited the Petitioner to present at in 201 0 
and to sit on a panel of experts to mentor up-and-coming designers in 2013. 
incorporated into the record. 
4 
Apr. 26, 2016, 
Apr. 20, 2008, at 36, available at 
A copy of the article has been printed and 
A copy of the article has been printed and incorporated into the record. 
are an annual awards ceremony hosted by the designed to recognize 
those in commercial sports. See "About Us," (Jun. 29, 2016), 
A copy ofthe page has been printed and incorporated into the record. 
5 
Matter of D-G-
Based on the above considerations, we find that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he is in that 
small percentage that has risen to the very top of the field of his endeavor. He has shown that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the 
field of expertise. For these reasons, he has established by a preponderance of the evidence his 
extraordinary ability as a technology design director. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown his extraordinary ability by satisfying at least three regulatory criteria, as 
well as demonstrating a level of expertise indicating he is one of that small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner has 
shown that he seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in his area of extraordinary 
ability. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. By demonstrating that he seeks to continue to work in 
his area of extraordinary ability, and there being no indication otherwise, we are satisfied that the 
Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(iii) 
of the Act. Therefore, the Petitioner has met the burden of proof necessary to establish eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Sections 203(b)(1)(A), 291 of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofD-G-, ID# 16383 (AAO July 6, 2016) 
6