remanded EB-1A Case: Art Direction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17024019 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 17, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an art director , 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) 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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he 
or she 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 scholarly aiiicles). 
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-paii review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits dete1mination); 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an art director who was employed by .__ _________ ~in 0-1 
nonimmigrant status at the time the petition was filed. The record reflects that he previously owned 
and operated his own companyll I which provided graphic design 
and related services to clients in .__ ___ _. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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 claims that he meets three of these ten criteria, relating 
to display of his work in artistic exhibitions or showcases, leading or critical roles for organizations 
that have a distinguished reputation, and commercial success in the arts. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vii), (viii) and (x). 
The Director's decision briefly addresses some elements of the regulatory criteria related to display 
and leading or critical roles, but does not specifically discuss the evidence submitted in support of 
these criteria or why such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the requirements stated at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vii) and (viii). For example, with respect to the leading or critical roles criterion, the 
analysis is limited to the following: 
The plain language requires the organization or establishments to have a distinguished 
reputation. Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as 1: marked by 
eminence, distinction, or excellence and 2: befitting an eminent person .... The 
evidence only provides general information and does not contain information about any 
awards, recognition or achievements garnered by the organization or establishment or 
otherwise demonstrate that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
It is unclear to which "organization or establishment" the decision refers because the decision does 
not mention the evidence the Petitioner provided, which included letters and supporting documentation 
2 
from more than half a dozen organizations. The Director also does not address whether the Petitioner 
established that any of his roles were leading or critical, and if not, why the submitted reference letters 
from prior clients and employers were insufficient to meet his burden of proof. The Director's 
discussion of the display criterion is similarly lacking a discussion of the Petitioner's evidence and his 
explanations as to how his evidence demonstrates eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vii). Further, although the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) prior to issuing 
the denial, the decision does not mention the evidence the Petitioner provided with his RFE response. 
Finally, neither the decision nor the RFE acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that he could satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), which relates to commercial success in the performing arts, and 
therefore does not include any acknowledgement or analysis of this third claimed evidentiary criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to explain why the evidence submitted in 
support of the petition was either disregarded or deemed to be deficient. For the reasons noted above, 
we agree with this contention. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in 
order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity 
for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
As we do not find that the record as presently constituted establishes the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
benefit sought, we cannot sustain the appeal; however, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. The Director is instructed to review 
the Petitioner's supp01iing letters and evidence submitted under all claimed initial evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On remand, the Director may also request any additional evidence 
deemed warranted and should allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence in support of his petition 
within a reasonable period of time. 
If after review the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, his decision 
should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether he has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record 
demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that 
his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 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. 1 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entiy of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,EvaluationofEvidenceSubmittedwith Ce1tainFormI-l 40Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/H1MUPolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3