This appeal was not successful at this stage
The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to satisfy at least three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. Only two criteria (leading/critical role and high salary) were found met, and the awards criterion was not established because the record showed awards went to the employer, not the beneficiary personally.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
A software design company filed an EB-1A petition for a visual designer, claiming she met three evidentiary criteria including lesser awards, leading role, and high salary. The Director found two criteria met but denied the petition for failure to satisfy the awards criterion. On appeal, the AAO agreed that the awards criterion was not met because the record showed awards were given to employer agencies rather than to the beneficiary personally; nominations and honorable mentions were also found insufficient as they are not awards; and CSS documentation actually listed a different designer's name. Because only two of the required three criteria were established, the appeal was dismissed without reaching a final merits determination.
What worked: The beneficiary successfully demonstrated a leading or critical role at distinguished organizations (criterion viii) and a high salary relative to others in the field (criterion ix), both of which were accepted by the Director and not disturbed on appeal.
What failed: The awards criterion failed entirely because the record showed that industry awards were given to the employer agency rather than to the beneficiary individually. Nominations and honorable mentions were not recognized as awards. Testimonial letters from supervisors could not substitute for documentary proof of personal receipt of an award, and CSS documentation undermined the claim by listing a different designer's name for the nominated work.
Takeaway: When claiming the lesser awards criterion, petitioners must provide documentation — not just testimonial letters — showing the beneficiary personally received the award from the awarding entity. Industry practices of crediting teams or agencies rather than individuals will not override the regulatory requirement that the alien herself must have received the prize or award.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The beneficiary successfully demonstrated a leading or critical role at distinguished organizations (criterion viii) and a high salary relative to others in the field (criterion ix), both of which were accepted by the Director and not disturbed on appeal.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The awards criterion failed entirely because the record showed that industry awards were given to the employer agency rather than to the beneficiary individually
- Nominations and honorable mentions were not recognized as awards
- Testimonial letters from supervisors could not substitute for documentary proof of personal receipt of an award, and CSS documentation undermined the claim by listing a different designer's name for the nominated work.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metAwards went to employer agencies, not to the beneficiary personally. One award found, but not in beneficiary's name; other items were nominations or honorable mentions, not awards. CSS documentation listed a different designer's name.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO reserved further discussion as it could not change the outcome.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO reserved further discussion as it could not change the outcome.
Completed
I-140 filed
Visual designer and creative design producer specializing in graphic design and multimedia advertising
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-01-22
AAO decision — Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to satisfy at least three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. Only two criteria (leading/critical role and high salary) were found met, and the awards criterion was not established because the record showed awards went to the employer, not the beneficiary personally.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.