remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-M-R-A-B-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 11, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial and information security executive, seeks classification as an individual 
with extraordinary ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who are able to demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through 
extensive documentation. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that while the 
Petitioner supplied the required initial documents, those items did not show the Petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim. The Director dismissed a subsequent motion, stating only that the 
Petitioner's "motion neither provides new evidence, provides precedent decisions to consider, nor 
establishes that the decision was incorrect based upon the evidence of record at the time." 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, an updated list 
of citations, and a copy of the information included on motion, and maintains that he met the 
requirements of both a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director for further 
proceedings. 
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 E-M-R-A-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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 
8 C.P.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.P.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. USCJS, 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 Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) proper 
application of Kazarian), aff'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 USCIS 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 
Motions to reopen and motions to reconsider are distinct and have different requirements. A motion 
to reopen must set forth the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state 
the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish 
that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. It must also 
demonstrate that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of the initial decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that the filing before the Director "contained both new facts and [an] 
explanation of erroneous application of the existing precedent and Service policy." The brief the 
Petitioner submitted in support of his motion to reopen and motion to reconsider included 10 pages 
of discussion, with multiple citations to policy set forth in the Adjudicator's Field Manual, which the 
2 
Matter of E-M-R-A-B-L-
Director did not address. The Director also did not acknowledge the submission of an abstract of the 
Petitioner's Thought Leadership Talk to address the Director's concern that the prior evidence did 
not contain a description of the event. The Director should consider the Petitioner's brief and this 
new evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
This matter will be remanded. The Director must issue a new decision which, if adverse, contains 
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, Nebraska Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, Nebraska 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 ofE-M-R-A-B-L-, ID# 16049 (AAO Apr. 11, 2016) 
3