remanded EB-1A Case: Automatic Transmission Remanufacturing

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 25753547 Date : MAY 17, 2023 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a manager in the field of automatic transmission remanufacturing, 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 although the record 
established the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of meeting at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he did not establish, as required, that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of his 
field . The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. 
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 Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&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 )(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 commercial successes). See generally 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"). 
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). See generally 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). 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he was required satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to 
judging the work of others, authorship of scholarly articles in the field, and performed in a leading or 
critical role for an establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
As the Petitioner demonstrated that he met the initial evidence requirements, the Director proceeded 
to a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze all of a 
petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are 
sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In 
this matter, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this very high 
standard. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in 
the record, and that this evidence establishes that he qualifies under the high standards of this 
immigrant visa classification. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not follow USCIS 
policy and did not consider the totality of the evidence in the record when conducting his final merits 
analysis. We agree with the Petitioner's assertions. The Director's final merits analysis did not consider 
the record in its entirety and is lacking a detailed discussion of the evidence provided in support of the 
petition. 
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to five of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the final merits discussion only briefly addresses evidence related to four of the 
criteria, rather than considering the evidence in its totality. Specifically, the Director's decision did 
not address the evidence relating to the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance and 
2 
whether that evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that he is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The record also includes multiple 
letters of support from professionals in the Petitioner's field that address the Petitioner's standing in 
the field that were not discussed by the Director. Because the Director did not properly consider all 
of the Petitioner's evidence in the final merits analysis, the decision did not sufficiently address why 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the requested classification. See generally 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). 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a 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). 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
review and entry of a new decision. As the Director already determined that the Petitioner satisfied at 
least three criteria, the Director should evaluate whether the Petitioner 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)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The 
new decision should include a final merits analysis of the totality of the record, including the evidence 
submitted in support of all claimed initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
addition, the new decision should consider the Petitioner's specific statements explaining how his 
work will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3