remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 4, 2024 In Re: 33362220 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify himself as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish either that the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award or, in the alternative, that the record satisfies at least three of the 10 initial 
evidentiary criteria. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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. 
A petitioner may establish prima facie eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability either by 
demonstrating receipt of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or, in 
the alternative, that at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria provided at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), implementing section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The Director concluded that the record 
did not establish that the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not "articulate what evidence 
was being submitted for consideration under each of the 10 criterion [sic]" and, consequently, that the 
Director "is unable to determine what criterion the [P]etitioner is attempting to meet." On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that, at the time of the Director's decision, the record articulated at least three initial 
evidentiary criteria and supporting evidence through which he believes he qualifies for the requested 
classification. 
We have reviewed the record in its entirety. The brief the Petitioner submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) both asserts that the record establishes eligibility under at least 
three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria provided at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and it articulates what 
evidence the Petitioner believes satisfies the respective criteria. The RFE response brief specifically 
states that the record "satisfie[s] the first criterion, receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award," and it discusses evidence the Petitioner believes satisfies that criterion. 
The RFE response brief also indicates, 'The fifth criterion has also been met," referencing 'Tabs 5, 
13, and 16 ofthe original documents." The RFE response further asserts, "[ the Petitioner] also satisfies 
the criterion for the ninth category as evidence by his executive sales positions," again referencing 
"Tabs 5, 13, and 16 of the original documents list" and "Tab 34." Accordingly, we withdraw the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not articulate what evidence was being submitted for 
consideration under at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria provided at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Based on the foregoing, we will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision. The Director may 
request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination regarding whether the 
record satisfies at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria provided at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
and any other issue. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on 
remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2