This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, artistic display, and critical/leading role), he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a graphic designer and creative services manager working for a major entertainment brand, met three of the ten EB-1A criteria: judging at trade show jury panels, displaying work at art exhibitions, and serving in a critical role for a distinguished organization. However, the AAO found that at the final merits stage, his accomplishments reflected recognition within his employer rather than sustained national or international acclaim in the broader field. His judging experience was recent and sourced only from the event's own website, his exhibition participation was deemed expected of artists generally, and brand success was attributed to the company rather than to him personally. His prior O-1 approval was noted but held non-binding for the higher immigrant classification standard.
What worked: The petitioner successfully cleared the initial evidentiary threshold by establishing jury service at trade shows, participation in art exhibitions, and a critical role at a distinguished organization. His salary was documented above the 75th percentile for graphic designers in his area.
What failed: Evidence of judging was sourced entirely from the event's own promotional website with no independent corroboration of prestige or national recognition. Commercial success from well-known video game brands was attributed to the company and brand, not to the petitioner personally. No total-compensation comparison data was provided for the high salary criterion, and letters from employer representatives alone were insufficient to establish individual national acclaim.
Takeaway: Working on high-profile projects for prestigious employers is not enough for EB-1A — petitioners must document personal, external recognition in the broader field, not just internal company appreciation. Evidence of judging, exhibitions, and critical roles should be corroborated by independent third-party sources such as trade press coverage, and salary claims should include bonus comparisons to peers.
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 petitioner successfully cleared the initial evidentiary threshold by establishing jury service at trade shows, participation in art exhibitions, and a critical role at a distinguished organization
- His salary was documented above the 75th percentile for graphic designers in his area.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Evidence of judging was sourced entirely from the event's own promotional website with no independent corroboration of prestige or national recognition
- Commercial success from well-known video game brands was attributed to the company and brand, not to the petitioner personally
- No total-compensation comparison data was provided for the high salary criterion, and letters from employer representatives alone were insufficient to establish individual national acclaim.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetMet at Step 1: served on 68-member jury panels at 2018 and 2019 trade shows. At Step 2 (final merits), found insufficient to establish sustained acclaim — jury selection process not shown to be limited to top-of-field individuals, no major-media coverage of the awards.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metInitially claimed but not contested on appeal; deemed waived.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
MetMet at Step 1: displayed artwork at three art exhibitions (2014–2017). At Step 2, found insufficient — participation in exhibits expected of artists; video game expo displays not qualifying artistic exhibitions; no evidence of individual recognition stemming from participation.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetMet at Step 1: critical role with a distinguished organization confirmed. At Step 2, found insufficient — company success attributed to brand, not to petitioner personally; other senior employees above petitioner in credits.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metContested on appeal. Base salary above 75th percentile but below 90th percentile for graphic designers. Bonuses included in W-2s but no comparable total-compensation data for others in field provided; AAO declined to find this criterion met in final merits context.
Participation as juror on 68-member jury panels at 2018 and 2019 trade shows (met criterion iv at Step 1)
Display of artwork at three art exhibitions between 2014 and 2017 (met criterion vii at Step 1)
Letters from employer confirming critical role and distinguished reputation of the organization (met criterion viii at Step 1)
Salary data showing base salary above 75th percentile for graphic designers in his area
W-2 income showing substantial bonuses in 2018 and 2019
All supporting evidence for judging sourced solely from the event's own website; no independent corroboration of event prestige or national media coverage
No evidence that jury selection at the trade shows was limited to those at the very top of the field
Video game expo promotional displays not qualifying as 'artistic exhibitions or showcases' for individual artists
Art show organizer's letter alone insufficient to establish only acclaimed artists were selected
Employer letters attributing brand success to petitioner personally — actual game credits listed many other senior employees above petitioner
Prior O-1 nonimmigrant approval not binding on EB-1A immigrant petition adjudication
Base salary not compared to total remuneration of others in field; bonuses not captured in available OES data
AAO found no reversible error in the Director's denial; the AAO agreed the petitioner did not meet the final merits standard despite satisfying the initial three criteria.
AAO noted the Director may not have fully addressed the high salary criterion but resolved it within its own final merits review rather than finding it was a prejudicial error.
Completed
I-140 filed
Graphic designer and creative services manager working on brand licensing, marketing, and packaging for major entertainment/video game companies
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-11-27
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, artistic display, and critical/leading role), he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
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