remanded EB-1A Case: Arts

MATTER OF B-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 30,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a painter and performance artist, seeks .~assification as an individual "of 
extraordinary ability" in the arts. See Immigration and Natii:iifality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(1)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The Director's decision will be withdrawn, and the matter will be 
remanded to the Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or satisfaction of at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, asserting that the Director's decision "has an internal major 
error" because it discussed the sport of table tennis, a field unrelated to the arts. The Petitioner notes 
that he did not provide any material relating to table tennis. Upon a close review of the evidence in the 
record and the Director's decision, we agree with the Petitioner. Accordingly, the decision, dated April 
23, 2015, will be withdrawn. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
Matter of B-L-
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 has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 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 his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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 Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) proper 
application of Kazarian), ajf'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 
131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that users examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In his April 23, 2015, decision, in addition to analyzing documents in the record, the Director also 
referenced materials concerning a table tennis player, which is unrelated to the arts, the field in 
which the Petitioner seeks exclusive classification. Specifically, although the Director's list of 
criteria the Petitioner advanced does not include the membership in associations criterion, the 
Director nevertheless included a discussion for this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), stating 
that the Petitioner submitted evidence of membership in the U.S. Table Tennis Association and two 
Chinese table tennis teams. The record does not support this assertion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
notes that he is "an independent artist" and "does not belong to any associations." Moreover, the 
Director's discussion for the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) concluded 
that the Petitioner did not show he had "sustained or [sic] national or international acclaim reported 
in major sports media as a table tennis player." Finally, the decision mentioned the display at 
exhibitions or showcases criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) twice. On page four of the 
2 
Matter of B-L-
decision, the Director found "[i]n light of the above," that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion; 
however, no discussion of this criterion appears above that conclusion. On page seven of the 
decision, however, the Director determined that the Petitioner did meet the criterion. Based on the 
extensive discussion of evidence unrelated to this petition under more than one criterion and the 
inconsistent findings relating to the display criterion, we withdraw the Director's decision, and, 
because the petition is not approvable, remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new 
decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
This matter will be remanded. The Director must issue a new decision, containing specific findings 
that will afford the Petitioner the opportunity to present a meaningful appeal. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, Texas Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, Texas Service Center, 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 of B-L-, ID# 14955 (AAO Dec, 30, 2015) 
3