remanded EB-1A Case: Architectural Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 23, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an architectural designer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, her evidence 
provided under the judging criterion was not consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Director did 
not properly evaluate her evidence in the final merits determination. 
Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter to the Director for further action and consideration. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of S-K-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. 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 he or she 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 he or she is 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. 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the judging, display, and leading or 
critical role criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vii), and (viii), respectively. However, after 
determining that the Petitioner met these initial evidence requirements, the Director mentioned and 
discussed only the documentation the Petitioner submitted for the judging criterion in the final merits 
determination. 
In addition to solely focusing on the evidence provided for the judging criterion, the Director's final 
merits assessment is problematic because it offered contradictory findings, analyses that do not appear 
relevant to the facts of this case, and unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, while the Director 
correctly noted that the Petitioner had "submitted evidence" showing that she was "part of an eleven 
member panel in competition to judge architectural design proposals," the decision 
then contradicted this statement, indicating : " There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 
actually judged the work of competitors such as assigning points or determining winners, rather than 
merely enforcing the rules and maintaining a fair sense of play. The absence of evidence of the 
beneficiary ' s participation ... is a significant omission from the record."1 We note that this type of 
analysis relates to whether the Petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements for 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) rather than whether the submitted documentation contributes to a finding that the 
1 The phrase "enforcing the rules and maintaining a fair sense of play" appears more relevant to an athletic competition 
than an architectural design contest. 
2 
Matter of S-K-
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. Furthermore, although the Director later 
stated that the record lacked "substantive evidence" of the Petitioner's "participation as a judge of the 
work of others ... that is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim," the decision's 
final merits discussion did not explain this conclusion. 
Here, the Director's final merits assessment did not properly consider the totality of the evidence. The 
Director only referenced the judging criterion and did not discuss the documentation relating to the 
other two criteria she found the Petitioner met, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and (viii), as well as the 
other evidence in the record. Accordingly, we are remanding for the Director to consider the totality 
of the material provided and assess whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field 
of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d at 1115; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
131-32; Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 1339.2 If the Director determines that the Petitioner has 
not satisfied these requirements, the Director should issue a new decision, containing sufficient 
analysis to afford the Petitioner the opportunity to present a meaningful appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We are remanding the petition for the Director to determine if the Petitioner has demonstrated 
sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top 
of her field of endeavor. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball 
Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision 
which, if adverse, shall be certified to us for review. 
Cite as Matter ofS-K-, ID# 2794551 (AAO Apr. 23, 2019) 
2 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that "USC IS officers should evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to make a final merits determination of whether or not the 
petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the alien is one of 
that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor"). 
3