remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 33960157 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a producer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. 
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 that the Petitioner meets the classification's initial evidentiary requirements . The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 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 consistent 
with the following analysis. 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 
In her initial filing, the Petitioner claimed to qualify under four of the initial evidentiary criteria: receipt 
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, published material about her in professional 
publications or major media, leading or critical role for establishments with distinguished reputations, 
and commanding a high salary or other remuneration. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)-(iii), (viii)-(ix). The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner met the publications and leading role criteria, which the record 
supports. Since the Petitioner had only met two of the initial evidentiary criteria, rather than the 
required three, the Director denied the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief regarding her qualifications for the awards and salary criteria, 
and resubmits various evidence from her underlying petition. Upon review, the record demonstrates 
that the Petitioner commanded a high salary in comparison to others in her field, as required for the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). As noted by the appellate brief, the denial stated that the 
Petitioner's annual salary in 2022 was RMB 545,435, but the income tax records provided in the initial 
filing indicate that this amount reflects how much income tax the Petitioner paid. Her remuneration 
in 2022 actually totaled RMB 1,958,142, well above the wage ranges given for others in her field. 
Therefore, the Petitioner qualifies under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 1 
The Petitioner has provided documentation that meets three of the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has therefore overcome the basis of the Director's denial. We will therefore 
remand this matter so that the Director can conduct a final merits determination according to the 
Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 Since the Petitioner has met the initial evidentiary requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we need not reach, and 
therefore reserve, the issue of whether the award qualifies as a lesser nationally recognized award under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); c.f.Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 
526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden 
of proof). 
2