This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider, finding the Petitioner failed to show the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner's arguments about his leading/critical role (criterion viii) were not persuasive.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A visual effects artist and animator sought EB-1A classification but was denied for failing to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. After a remand, a second denial, and a dismissed appeal, the Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider focusing solely on criterion viii (leading or critical role). The AAO found the Petitioner's work on advertising campaigns—including a Shorty Award finalist campaign and a Silver Marketing Award-winning Olympic Committee campaign—did not establish a critical role for any specific organization or its divisions. The AAO also found the Petitioner failed to independently establish the distinguished reputation of the agencies he worked for. The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner could not show the prior decision misapplied law or policy.
What failed: 1. The Petitioner's work on commercially successful advertising projects was not sufficient to show a 'critical role' for an organization — participation in a successful project does not automatically mean a critical role. 2. The Petitioner relied on the prominence of his employers' clients to imply the agencies had distinguished reputations, rather than providing independent evidence of the agencies' standing. 3. One award was not timely because the Shorty Award finalist designation occurred after the petition filing date.
Takeaway: For criterion viii, petitioners must clearly document how their specific contributions were indispensable to the operations of an identifiable organization or one of its divisions — not just that they worked on a high-profile project. The distinguished reputation of the employer organization must also be established with direct evidence, not inferred from the prestige of clients.
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
- The Petitioner's work on commercially successful advertising projects was not sufficient to show a 'critical role' for an organization — participation in a successful project does not automatically mean a critical role
- The Petitioner relied on the prominence of his employers' clients to imply the agencies had distinguished reputations, rather than providing independent evidence of the agencies' standing
- One award was not timely because the Shorty Award finalist designation occurred after the petition filing date.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner argued critical role on advertising/media projects including Shorty Award finalist campaign and Silver Marketing Award-winning Olympic Committee campaign. AAO found individual projects are not organizational divisions, and Petitioner failed to show his specific role was critical to any organization or division thereof. Also failed to establish distinguished reputation of employer agencies.
Work on social media campaign that was designated a Shorty Award finalist (post-filing date, ineligible)
Work on Olympic Committee ad campaign for which employer won a Silver Marketing Award in Cinematography
Letters describing Petitioner's digital modeling work on high-profile commercial projects
Claims of distinguished reputation of agencies based on prominence of their clients rather than independent evidence
Completed
I-140 filed
Visual effects artist and animator working on commercial and advertising productions
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-09-13
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider, finding the Petitioner failed to show the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner's arguments about his leading/critical role (criterion viii) were not persuasive.
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