Date of Decision: August 8, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Speculative Designer
Field: Speculative Design and Innovation
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under seven regulatory criteria but satisfied only two.
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Evidence demonstrated that the petitioner’s work was displayed in recognized speculative design exhibitions.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- Awards cited by the petitioner, such as a “Student Runner Up” honor and a “Young Researcher’s Award,” lacked evidence of national or international recognition for excellence in the field.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles submitted, including features on platforms like Workship and Note.com, failed to demonstrate recognition in professional or major trade publications. The petitioner did not substantiate these platforms’ classification as major media.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- While the petitioner participated in design innovation projects, the evidence failed to establish a critical role or demonstrate that the organizations involved held a distinguished reputation.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner did not provide evidence of major influence or adoption of his contributions within the speculative design field.
- Judging the Work of Others:
- No evidence of participation as a judge in the field was provided.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material:
Articles submitted from platforms like Workship and Note.com were found insufficient to meet the criterion due to lack of prominence or evidence of significant readership impact.
Awards Evidence:
The awards submitted did not meet the standard of national or international recognition for excellence in speculative design.
Critical Role Evidence:
The petitioner’s involvement in projects was contractual rather than as an employee, and the projects did not demonstrate significant impact on the organizations’ outcomes or operations.
Original Contributions:
While the petitioner participated in innovative projects, the evidence did not substantiate a major or widespread impact in the speculative design field.
Final Merits Determination Not Reached:
The petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria, and thus the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) did not proceed to a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Authorship Evidence: Scholarly articles in professional publications.
Exhibition Evidence: Documentation of work displayed at speculative design showcases.
Awards Evidence: Regional and academic awards, insufficient for national or international acclaim.
Published Materials: Articles and features from non-major platforms.
Critical Role Evidence: Participation in design innovation projects, lacking evidence of critical impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the speculative design field.
