Visa O1 Green card EB1

EB-1A green card petition for designers

In 2023, I received a US EB-1A green card for designers and developers. Initially, I was approved with 5 out of the 9 filed criteria and sent a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), which I contested. Subsequently, my petition was approved.

I wrote the petition myself, without the assistance of lawyers, which I recommend everyone to do. To help everyone, I am sharing the complete text of the petition. Free of charge.

The petition covers 9 out of 10 criteria and has a volume of 712 pages. The petition includes the text of the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and the response to it.

The information provided on this site is intended solely for general informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney and do not have the authority to provide legal advice. All decisions and actions related to the petition should be made based on your own judgment and/or with the consultation of a qualified attorney.

Download petition

Donut

I don’t charge a single cent for my petition. But if you still want to show your appreciation, you can buy me a coffee or make me happy with cryptocurrency:

What and for who

The EB-1A green card category is officially referred to as an Immigrant Visa for Individuals with Extraordinary Ability. The requirements for this visa are described on the website of the US immigration service, or USCIS.

The EB-1A green card is granted to individuals with extraordinary abilities in the fields of science, arts, education, business, or sports. In this petition, my profession is referred to as Product Designer and Developer, falling under the category of arts. I not only create website and mobile app designs but also write programming code for them.

My petition will definitely be applicable to professions such as UI/UX Designer, Web Designer, Mobile Designer, and other related fields. Web Developers and Mobile Developers can also find valuable information in my petition.

For other professions, the petition can serve as a useful example. Personally, I used the petition by Razvan Marinescu in the field of medicine as a reference: Razvan Marinescu’s petition.

EB-1A visa criteria

According to the requirements of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to obtain the EB-1A visa, one must either have an extraordinary award equivalent to the Nobel Prize or meet 3 out of the 10 criteria:

  1. Receipt of an international or national award,
  2. Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements,
  3. Publications in the press about beneficiary or his works,
  4. Experience in judging or evaluating works as part of a jury or individually,
  5. Evidence of original contributions to the professional field,
  6. Authorship of articles in peer-reviewed journals or the press,
  7. Participation of works in art exhibitions or collections,
  8. Employment in a key position in a company with a distinguished reputation,
  9. High salary,
  10. Commercial success recognized by the press.

Many criteria are identical to the O-1A visa. In addition to the 8 criteria, 2 criteria from the O-1B visa are added: participation in exhibitions and commercial success. Thus, the EB-1A visa serves as a universal extension for both types of O-1 visas.

A popular question: if the criteria for the O-1 visa and the EB-1A green card are the same, why not apply directly for the EB-1A? The difference lies in the process of evaluation. In addition to meeting 3 out of the 10 criteria, it is also necessary to satisfy 3 new conditions:

  1. The success must be sustainable and long-lasting,
  2. The applicant must be the best among the best,
  3. The applicant’s work should benefit the U.S. economy.

These conditions are referred to as “Final merits” and are evaluated by the visa officer not based on formal criteria but subjectively through personal assessment. This is where lies the main challenge of obtaining such a green card. If statistics show that 90% of applicants receive the O-1 visa, then the EB-1A has an approval rate of around 70%.

The order of describing the criteria is the same as for the O-1 visa, but weak evidence should not be included in the EB-1A petition. Visa officers evaluate the evidence for the green card much more strictly.

Significant attention should be given to the chronology of achievements. EB-1A petitions are evaluated using a two-step system. First, the officer assesses the formal criteria. If at least 3 criteria are met, the officer proceeds to evaluate the Final merits, assessing the duration and degree of success.

Therefore, although weak evidence should not be included in the petition, sometimes it becomes necessary if that evidence demonstrates the chronology of success. In my petition, 9 out of 10 criteria are presented in the following order:

  1. Awards:
    1. 365: AIGA Year in Design – Winner,
    2. A’ Design Awards – Iron,
    3. CSS Design Awards – Site of the Day,
    4. Design Nominees – Site of the Day.
  2. Publications in the press:
    1. ScienceTimes, scientific news,
    2. TechTimes, technology news,
    3. “Chemistry is Easy”, a YouTube channel,
    4. Awdee, a design magazine,
    5. BroDude, a men’s magazine,
    6. Big City, a Moscow life magazine,
    7. Russia-2, a TV channel.
  3. Jury participation:
    1. Judge at w3 Design Awards,
    2. Judge at Davey Awards,
    3. Judge at Orpetron Design Awards.
  4. Exhibitions and collections:
    1. Museum of Outstanding Design,
    2. One Page Love.
  5. Authorship of articles:
    1. Scatter Plot Design – UX Collective magazine,
    2. Graph Design. Lines – UX Collective magazine,
    3. Graph Design. Scales – UX Collective magazine,
    4. Design of Complex Tables – UX Collective magazine,
    5. Best at Chatting: Can ChatGPT Replace the Work of a UI/UX Designer – RBC Pro,
    6. Fitts’s Law in Mobile Operating Systems – “Bulletin of Scientific Conferences” journal,
    7. Fitts’s Law in Modern Operating Systems – “Bulletin of Scientific Conferences” journal,
    8. History of Design in Russia and Europe 19th–21st Century – “Scientific Almanac” journal.
  6. Membership in associations:
    1. IAD – International Association of Designers,
    2. Eurasian Art Union.
  7. Original contribution to the field. The article on table design describes a new approach in design, which has led to extensive citation.
  8. Key position in a company with a distinguished reputation:
    1. Sovcombank – Lead UI/UX Designer for the Skybonds platform,
    2. Love Media Studio – Art Director.
  9. High salary.

The petition also includes 9 letters of recommendation:

  1. From experts to confirm:
    1. original contribution to the field,
    2. achievement of the pinnacle in their area of expertise,
    3. potential benefit to the USA.
  2. From management and colleagues to confirm a key position.

RFE and NOID

When an officer has questions about the petition, they are not allowed to deny it without requesting additional information. The request can come in two forms:

Receiving an RFE is considered normal, whereas a NOID often causes panic as it supposedly indicates irreparable issues in the petition. Lawyers rarely respond to such a request and suggest resubmitting the petition in hopes of encountering a more lenient officer.

In my opinion, this approach is incorrect. Receiving a NOID is only dangerous if three criteria are not satisfied. However, if the criteria are met, then in case of any shortcomings, the officer is compelled to issue a NOID because an RFE is meaningless: all the required information has already been provided in the petition, but it is insufficient for the Final merits conditions.

Response to NOID

I received a NOID under unique circumstances: the officer approved 5 criteria instead of the required 3. This sparked a heated debate in thematic chats as an example of bias.

The officer approved the following criteria:

  1. Awards,
  2. Jury participation,
  3. Authorship of articles,
  4. Exhibitions and collections,
  5. High salary.

Not approved:

  1. Membership in associations,
  2. Publications in the press,
  3. Key position,
  4. Original contribution to the field.

Despite the 5 criteria being considered, the officer wrote that the majority of the achievements are related to the year 2023, which is insufficient to demonstrate long-term, sustained success.

In this regard, the officer:

  1. Did not accept the criterion of publications in the media, which has a history since 2012,
  2. Completely ignored the awards in 2018,
  3. Stated that although I wrote articles in 2018, they are scientific, whereas the petition is filed in the field of art.

The response strategy was obvious. The most important thing was to fulfill the criterion of press publications since 2012. Just in case, it is worth meeting the criterion of scientific articles, proving that the articles from 2018 are relevant to my profile. Additionally, reiterate the awards received in 2018 and try to demonstrate holding a key position since 2020.

Press publications

The officer did not count the press publications for unfounded reasons.

Firstly, he questioned the statistics of site visits from SimilarWeb. The officer states that these numbers represent the number of website visitors, not readers. As a technical specialist, I simply cannot understand the essence of this objection.

Secondly, the officer completely disregarded the fact that in addition to publications on websites, I provided videos on YouTube and interviews with a federal TV channel, accompanied by objective statistics from the platforms themselves.

In response to the NOID, I attached visitation data from the pr-cy.io platform and detailed that the statistics for YouTube and the television channel were independent but were ignored during the analysis.

Authorship of articles

Although I published articles starting from 2018, it seemed as if the officer deliberately considered only the year 2023 and then wrote that they did not see a history of success.

According to his opinion, my older articles are scientific, while the profile of the petition falls under art rather than science. I don’t understand this distinction since interface design lies between these two fields.

Most likely, the officer did not like the Fitts’s Law formula mentioned in one of the articles — it is a well-known law in design that states that the larger the button, the easier it is to target with a mouse cursor.

I needed to come up with a vivid analogy to persuade the officer, and I managed to do so. In response, I attached a picture of the Mona Lisa with the golden ratio formula superimposed on it. And wrote: “Dear officer, in any book about Leonardo da Vinci, you can find the golden ratio formula, but that doesn’t make it a scientific article.”

Another article was dedicated to the history of posters in Russia and Europe. I explicitly stated that a scientific article cannot include advertising posters as illustrations. Overall, I pointed out that the articles only resemble scientific ones due to their proper formatting, but they are entirely devoted to interface design.

Key role

I worked at Sovcombank, which is one of the largest banks in Russia, as mentioned in the petition. The officer claimed that the company’s size does not indicate its outstanding reputation. Additionally, he stated that recommendation letters from superiors without addresses are not accepted.

It was easy to respond to that. Sovcombank is the recipient of numerous awards, so I attached several news articles about its victories. In the letters, I had to add addresses and request each person to sign them again.

Furthermore, the officer completely ignored the fact that prior to Sovcombank, I worked at my own design studio, which was included in the Top 100 best studios. I had to remind and attach photographs of diplomas directly into the text.

Zizi v. Cuccinelli precedent

In addition to the formal response to the officer’s objections, I attached excerpts from two crucial precedents to the case.

One of them is the case of Zizi v. Cuccinelli from 2021. The court ruled that the comparative analysis of media audience is only conducted for major media. Among the publications about me, only the interview with Russia-2 channel is considered major media. The rest of the publications are classified as professional or major trade media, and statistics regarding them are not required to be provided.

I have allocated two pages for a detailed presentation of the precedent, and under each publication, I have noted that it does not relate to major media and, therefore, I should not provide a comparative analysis with other media outlets.

Muni v. INS precedent

The second case is Muni v. INS.

In 1993, an NHL officer credited a Canadian hockey player with 5 criteria but denied the petition approval because the applicant failed to demonstrate the sustained nature of their success. Rings a bell, doesn’t it?

Muni filed a lawsuit and won it. The court declared that the officer’s actions were extremely peculiar: crediting 3 criteria already signifies significant success, although it does not guarantee petition approval. But to credit 5 criteria and still deny it is simply an abuse of discretion.

In my response, I included excerpts from this precedent, detailing the circumstances of the case and its outcome on 2 pages.

Chronological timeline

I think the officer was confused by the number of achievements in 2023 — they truly gave the impression that I deliberately inflated the criteria for applying for a green card.

In reality, I was only considering the visa for talents and didn’t even dream about the EB-1. However, the success in 2023 turned out to be so significant that I decided to try.

And yet, there was clearly a bias towards the year 2023 in the petition. So, I drew a chronological timeline and marked all my achievements by year. On this timeline, it is evident that the bias is not so significant, and the progression of my success is clearly visible.

Petition approved

After 7 days of submitting the response to the NOID, the status changed to “actively reviewing.” The petition was approved on the following day.

I don’t know how many criteria the officer approved. I believe he accepted the press and key role. Therefore, the petition was most likely approved based on 7 out of 10 criteria. Perhaps it’s a record.

In conclusion, I would like to share two articles about the proper response to biased officer demands:

  1. Tackling O-1, EB-1 & NIW RFEs/NOIDs
  2. The AAO & Kazarian’s Final Merits Analysis

My experience indicates that the quality of petition preparation and the volume of evidence do not guarantee success. Officers indeed judge very biasedly and often lack knowledge of the law.

I believe that the position of attorneys not to respond to a NOID is incorrect. This opportunity should be utilized, and my example shows that a NOID is not a verdict. On the contrary, a well-crafted response to the officer’s claim sends a signal: “I have nothing to hide, and I’m not afraid to take the case to court.”

The most challenging task is not just to respond to the officer’s claims but to do this tactfully and strictly at the same time. When reading the officer’s claims, it’s hard to keep a straight face. It’s important to detach yourself and imagine that the officer genuinely failed to understand the case. I rewrote the response text several times before it ceased being rude and became respectful.

In my response, I employed a carrot-and-stick approach. On one hand, I highlighted that many of the demands were not lawful. On the other hand, I stated that I would still provide all the data requested by the officer since I respect the work of the immigration service.

⁂

Fear of self-preparing a petition is caused by the lack of examples and the information trading culture prevalent in the United States.

I believe that government information should be accessible to all individuals, regardless of their social status and income.

I believe that technology is reforming legislation. We are told that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But how can one “know the law” when it is written in a language that even a person with advanced education cannot understand?

The future of legislation lies in artificial intelligence, providing consultations based on its embedded code. Petitions consisting of hundreds or thousands of pages, printed on paper, are an anachronism that is inconceivable in the 21st century and incompatible with a green economy.

Due to the opaque immigration system, America is starting to lose the competitive battle for skilled professionals. Not many are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to attorneys who are unresponsive for weeks and lose elementary cases.

I believe that the system for obtaining O and EB visas should be completely reformed and reduced to sending a 10-page PDF file to the USCIS via email.

When composing my petition for the first time, I was infuriated by the level of absurdity that a talent had to go through to enter America. I want to make a contribution and help fulfill the dreams of those who deserve it but lack the strength and money. That’s why I put in this titanic effort, which I’m sharing with you without asking for a cent.