Date of Decision: January 28, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Open World Game Design Lead
Field: Video Game Design and Development
Nationality: France
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): Evidence demonstrated that the beneficiary played a leading and critical role for prominent video game companies on major franchises.
- High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)): Salary evidence established that the beneficiary received compensation significantly higher than many peers in the industry.
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)): Evidence showed the beneficiary worked on award-winning games. However, documentation did not establish that he personally received any awards. Participation on award-winning teams was insufficient under this criterion.
- Published Material About the Beneficiary (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)): Articles from Maldito’s Nerds and Access the Animus discussed the beneficiary but lacked circulation data proving they were major trade publications. Other articles only briefly mentioned his name or projects without substantial discussion of his work. USCIS concluded the record failed to demonstrate the required publication standards.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): The petitioner submitted reviews of video games, expert letters, and testimonial statements. USCIS found the evidence praised the beneficiary’s project-level contributions but did not establish broader field-wide significance or adoption of his innovations across the video game industry.
Key Points from the Decision
- Team vs. Individual Recognition: AAO emphasized that while the beneficiary worked on award-winning projects, regulations require proof of his personal receipt of awards.
- Insufficient Media Evidence: Online gaming blogs and web traffic data were inadequate to prove recognition in major trade or professional publications.
- Field-Wide Impact Not Proven: Testimonials described the beneficiary’s valuable work but lacked evidence of industry-wide adoption or transformative impact.
- O-1 Visa Not Controlling: The beneficiary’s previous O-1 nonimmigrant approval did not guarantee EB-1 extraordinary ability eligibility because standards differ.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded the petitioner failed to establish at least three criteria and therefore did not proceed to a full merits determination. The evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary achieved sustained national or international acclaim or was among the small percentage at the top of the video game design field.
Supporting Documentation
- Role Evidence: Proof of leadership roles in major video game franchises (accepted).
- Salary Evidence: Compensation documentation establishing high remuneration (accepted).
- Award Evidence: Printouts showing team awards without individual recognition (rejected).
- Published Material: Articles and online media mentions lacking proof of major trade status (rejected).
- Contribution Evidence: Expert letters and game reviews insufficient to prove field-wide major significance (rejected).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner only established two criteria (leading role and high salary). Without three qualifying criteria, the petition could not advance to a merits determination, and the record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim required under EB-1 standards.
