remanded EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21 , 2024 In Re: 30210432 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actress, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A) . This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had established her extraordinary ability. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
Remanding a matter is appropriate when the Director does not fully explain the reasons for the denial 
so that the affected party has a fair opportunity to contest the decision and we have an opportunity to 
conduct a meaningful appellate review. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(i),(iii) (providing that the director's 
decision must explain the specific reasons for denial); cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 
1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal.) 
In this instance, the Director's denial states at multiple points that the Petitioner both did and did not 
meet three of the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), does not specify which 
criteria have or have not been met or why, and does not address the provided evidence either in the 
final merits determination or at any other point. Because it is not apparent what grounds the Director 
based the denial upon, the Petitioner has not been afforded a fair opportunity to contest the decision, 
and we cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review. We will therefore remand this matter to the 
Director to review and weigh all of the evidence provided, including the attorney letter provided on 
appeal, and make a new detennination of the Petitioner's eligibility. 
The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and 
any other issues. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2