All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field, as required by section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner's evidence, including two textbooks with 5,900 copies sold and a proposed acquisition offer of $1 million for his company, was deemed insufficient to establish the required level of acclaim or preeminence compared to others in the field. USCIS also noted the lack of objective documentation for the significance of his company's vendor status and the unproven nature of the acquisition.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. The 'Prizes or Awards' criterion was not met as the beneficiary did not personally receive awards, only worked on award-winning projects. The 'Published Material' criterion was not met because the publications were not shown to be major trade/professional publications and did not substantially discuss the beneficiary's work. The 'Original Contributions' criterion was not met as the major significance of the contributions to the broader field (beyond the employer) was not established. Only 'Leading or Critical Role' and 'High Remuneration' were found to be met, falling short of the required three criteria.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the awards were not corroborated or shown to be nationally/internationally recognized. Published material was not 'about the alien' and lacked publication details. Judging experience was vague and lacked specific details or corroborating evidence. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance beyond employers/clients. Authorship of scholarly articles was not met, as slides/photos of speaking engagements are not scholarly articles. High salary was not established with comparable data for 'Product Design Director' roles, only for 'Web and Digital Interface Designers'.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, claims for memberships, published material, original contributions of major significance, and high salary were not substantiated with objective, independent evidence. The evidence provided for memberships lacked proof of outstanding achievement requirements, published material lacked major media standing, original contributions were limited to company projects rather than the overall field, and salary comparisons were not against similarly employed workers in the field. The decision explicitly states that the Beneficiary did not establish the acclaim and recognition required for the classification, failing to show he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.