This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy even three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. Awards, published materials, and artistic display criteria were all unmet because evidence pertained to the petitioner's company rather than the petitioner personally.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on work in sustainable development and sustainable design. The Texas Service Center director denied the petition for failing all ten criteria, and the AAO affirmed on appeal. Three criteria were specifically addressed: awards all went to the petitioner's company rather than the individual; published articles covered the company without substantively featuring the petitioner; and a community development project was not shown to have been displayed at an artistic exhibition or showcase. Because the petitioner could not clear the three-criterion threshold, the AAO did not conduct a Kazarian final merits analysis. The case illustrates the importance of ensuring that evidence is attributable to the individual petitioner, not to their employer or associated company.
What failed: 1. All submitted awards were received by the petitioner's company or its projects — none were awarded to the petitioner personally, disqualifying them for the awards criterion. 2. Media coverage articles were about the company and its projects, not about the petitioner as an individual; the petitioner was only briefly quoted in two pieces. 3. The community development project was not shown to have been exhibited at an artistic venue, so the artistic display criterion was not met.
Takeaway: When building an EB-1A petition, ensure all evidence — awards, media coverage, and exhibition records — is explicitly tied to the individual petitioner, not to a company or project they are associated with. Petitioners working through an organization should proactively obtain documentation crediting them personally for contributions and achievements.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- All submitted awards were received by the petitioner's company or its projects — none were awarded to the petitioner personally, disqualifying them for the awards criterion
- Media coverage articles were about the company and its projects, not about the petitioner as an individual
- the petitioner was only briefly quoted in two pieces
- The community development project was not shown to have been exhibited at an artistic venue, so the artistic display criterion was not met.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metAwards were received by the petitioner's company or its project, not by the petitioner personally; no awarding documentation mentioned the petitioner.
Published material about the person
Not metNine articles submitted; only four had required title/date/author, and all articles covered the company rather than the petitioner personally; petitioner only briefly quoted in two articles.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Not metCommunity development project was built on land in a city outskirt; petitioner did not demonstrate it was displayed at an artistic exhibition or showcase venue.
Company-level awards (Asia Pacific Leadership in Green Building Awards 2018, Platinum Certification from Indian Green Building Council, 2018 Architectural Design Award, International Architecture Awards 2015, Certificate of Honorable Mention from Re-Thinking the Future Sustainability Awards, Jury Commendation from Design and Architecture Award) — all received by the company or project, not the petitioner personally
Nine submitted articles — only four had required title/date/author, and none were 'about' the petitioner; petitioner only briefly quoted in two
Evidence of community development project display — not shown to be at an artistic exhibition or showcase
Completed
I-140 filed
Sustainable development and sustainable design professional, co-founder of an environmentally conscious community development company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-05-19
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy even three of the ten required evidentiary criteria. Awards, published materials, and artistic display criteria were all unmet because evidence pertained to the petitioner's company rather than the petitioner 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.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee