remanded EB-1A Case: Architectural Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20634358 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 15, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an architectural designer , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 our discussion below . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States . 
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 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) . If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, 
and artistic display). 1 
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. USCIS, 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claimed to have satisfied five of these criteria, relating to awards for excellence, 
published material about him, participation as a judge of the work of others, original contributions of 
major significance, and artistic display of his work. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to published material and judging, 
but determined that he did not satisfy the awards, original contributions, and artistic display criteria. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the awards and artistic display criteria, and that he 
has satisfied the standard of proof in this matter. Except where a different standard is specified by 
law, a petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Under the preponderance 
of the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner's claim is "probably true." 
Id. at 376. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Petitioner that he has also satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), relating to artistic display of his work.4 The Petitioner has, therefore, 
overcome the basis for denial of the petition through fulfillment of three regulatory criteria. Nevertheless, 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (indicating that USCIS officers should first 
"[a]ssess whether evidence meets regulatory criteria: Determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, which evidence 
submitted by a petitioner objectively meets the parameters of the regulatory description that applies to that type of 
evidence"). 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (stating that in the final merits determination, USCIS officers should 
evaluate all the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if a petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence. the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 The Director's first-step analysis of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) included some problematic 
statements. For example, the Director stated: "[T]he mere fact that an artist has exhibited his work does not necessarily 
establish extraordinary ability. The artist must also demonstrate that the exhibition or showcase was at a venue of sufficient 
level to evidence acclaim .... " The language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), however, does not require 
that a petitioner's evidence show "extraordinary ability" or "acclaim" as indicated in the Director's decision. Such an 
analysis of the evidence is relevant to the final merits determination and not the first-step evaluation of the display criterion. 
4 For instance, the record includes documentation indicating that his designs have been displayed at artistic exhibitions in 
China. 
2 
the record does not support approval of the petition. Granting the third initial criterion does not suffice 
to establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The Director must 
undertake a final merits determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to determine if they establish that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim in the field and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the stated reason for denial, we remand this proceeding so that 
the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3