remanded EB-1A Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 05, 2025 In Re: 36222104 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an architect and urban designer, seeks classification as an alien 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish she satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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 the following analysis. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and the alien'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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
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). 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied seven of these criteria, but the Director 
determined the Petitioner fulfilled only two: judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains 
that she meets five additional criteria, relating to membership, display, critical role, high salary, and 
1commercial success. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Petitioner that she satisfies the high salary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 2 The Petitioner has therefore overcome the basis for denial of the petition 
through fulfillment of three regulatory criteria. Nevertheless, 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 she has sustained national or international 
acclaim in the field and that she is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the stated reason for denial, we remand this proceeding so that 
the Director can render a final merits determination. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 The Petitioner asserted that she meets the commercial success criterion through the submission of comparable evidence. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 The record includes the Petitioner's 2021 income tax form and compensation data for architects and urban planners 
indicating she has received significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field. 
2