remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 7, 2024 In Re: 31090604 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a business executive who seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did it demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the 
Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met five of the regulatory criteria. The Director decided 
that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the 
evidentiary criteria relating to the same three criteria the Director denied in their decision. 
The Director's denial raised an issue associated with the Petitioner's foreign language evidence that 
was translated into English. On appeal the Petitioner remedied the issue. Because the Director did 
not fully analyze the Petitioner's evidence under the remaining three criteria, we will remand the 
matter for consideration. However, we offer no indication whether the Petitioner ' s evidence should 
satisfy any of the criteria the Director might consider. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.