remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 2, 2023 In Re: 28650651 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 the Petitioner had 
"not established an actual working relationship with I !' 1 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. 
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 a beneficiary's 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 a beneficiary meets at least three of 
1 This conclusion in not a proper legal basis for denying the petition. The Director's determination is not based on the 
pertinent statute and regulations for the classification sought. 
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 authorship of scholarly articles). 2 
Where a beneficiary 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). 3 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision erred in not addressing the 
Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act 
and the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(l)-(5). We agree with the Petitioner. For 
instance, the Director's decision did not determine if the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, or satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
With the a}peal, the Petitioner presents evidence of the Beneficiary's past working relationship with 
I prior to his death inl l For example, the Petitioner provides aO2020 article 
in ProPublica, which states: 
The Beneficia a few thousand dollars a iece to 
But 
what [the Beneficia wanted to ta e on 2019, wasn't the usual~---~ 
infomercial. ~-----------~ 
Everyone has a different story about how [the Beneficiary] andC7 first met. [The 
Beneficia!Y] told an Israeli magazine that formerl I 
sentOa letter of introduction. said he had "no memory of that at all," adding 
that a former introduced them. 
~---------' told ProPublica that he introduced them at [ the Beneficiary's] 
request around 2011. 
Regardless, "I liked him right away,"LJsaid in a 2017 interview with an Israeli 
outlet. "Then we forged this kind of partnership and investment firm." 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (indicating that USCTS officers 
should first "[a]ssess whether evidence meets regulatory criteria: Determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, which 
evidence submitted by the petitioner objectively meets the parameters of the regulatory description that applies to that type 
of evidence"). 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B) (stating that in the final merits dete1mination, USCIS officers 
should ·'[ e ]valuate all the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety for the final merits determination, 
in the context of the high level of expertise required for this immigrant classification"). 
2 
[The Beneficiary] is variousl described in Israeli news articles and on his Facebook 
a e as resident of '; and 
._____________ _." ProPublica could find no such entities, and D 
said they don't exist. [The Beneficiary] said he made up the names "to describe what 
we are doing." 
"He was obviously playing off my name," D said. "I did sign a few things with the 
[Beneficiary], but they went away because the business went out. . . . I said, sure I'll 
help. And then suddenly it was gone. Then he'd have another thing, and it was gone. 
He's a wheeler-dealer, but I felt sorry for him. I never envisioned him hurting anyone. 
But I certainly don't like him using my name without my authority. It's dangerous, 
what he's doing." 
In 2012, [the Beneficiary] and D co-founded,____________ ___. m 
California, according to archived versions of its website. It aimed to develop digital 
platforms and content, and is no longer active. "He is an amateur bad businessperson 
with an ambition to gain notoriety just through the networking but not necessarily 
understanding how to launch products," said I I the group's former head of 
marketing. 
The article in ProPublica does not portray the Beneficiary as having sustained national or international 
acclaim in business or a level or a level of expertise rendering him among the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of his field, but we conclude that this article, as well as other corroborating 
evidence in the record, is sufficient to show that the Beneficiary had a past business relationship with 
I l The Petitioner has therefore overcome the Director's sole basis for denial of the petition. 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for farther 
review and entry of a new decision. The Director should consider all the evidence and determine if 
the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, or satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). If the Beneficiary meets either of these 
initial evidence requirements, the Director should evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated 
the Beneficiary's 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. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3