remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20499623 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 10, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive and entrepreneur, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . 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 that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 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. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the noncitizen has 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, 
(ii) the noncitizen seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the noncitizen'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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, the petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of 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 scholarly articles). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a business leader with experience in strategic management, 
business development, and entrepreneurship. He holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a 
master of business administration from Brazilian universities and is a 2014 graduate of the 
Owner/President Management program atl I School. The record reflects that he served 
as the president of Brazilian company! I from 2003 until March 2016, when he sold the 
company tol , a U.S.-based multinational corporation that is traded on the NASDAQ stock 
exchange. He served as country manager and managing director for I in Brazil following the 
acquisition of I I and founded! in December 2016, 
where he has since served as CEO. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must show that he satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed he could satisfy the following criteria: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual and their work; 
• (iv), Judging the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that he met 
any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
2 
After reviewing the record in its totality, we conclude that the Director's determinations with respect 
to the referenced criteria were conclusory and did not specifically address all of the Petitioner's claims 
or evidence. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Because the Director's decision does not 
provide a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial, we will withdraw that 
decision and remand for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion 
below. That decision should include an analysis of the specific evidence submitted in support of each 
criteria claimed by the Petitioner. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
which requires submission of evidence demonstrating that he is a member in an association in his field 
that requires outstanding achievements of its members, with membership eligibility judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the field. The Petitioner stated that he could meet this 
criterion based on his membership in the I I School Alumni of Brazil 
I land thel I With respect to the Petitioner's membership in __ 
the Director's decision references the evidence he submitted in response to a request for evidence 
(RFE) but does not address the initial evidence provided in support of this criterion. Further, the 
decision does not acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that his membership in _______ 
satisfies this criterion and did not address the evidence submitted in support of that claim. As the 
matter will be remanded, the Director is instructed to re-examine the evidence submitted in support of 
this criterion, including the Petitioner's accompanying letters explaining how the evidence supports 
his eligibility. 
With respect to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner submitted 
several articles from Brazilian publications that discuss him and his work in his field. The Director's 
decision briefly references only two of these articles and the analysis consists of a conclusory 
statement that the "articles are not big major trade publications or other major media." At the same 
time the Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the circulation 
of the publications. However, the record indicates the Petitioner's submission of documentation in 
support of his claim that one or more of the submitted articles was published in a major trade 
publication or other major media. Therefore, the decision reflects an incomplete review of the 
evidence submitted in support of this criterion. On remand, the Director should review the record to 
determine whether the Petitioner met this criterion at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner claims that he can meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which requires 
evidence of his participation as the judge of the work of others in the same or allied field, based on his 
activities with [ I and as an invited judge for a Global Student Entrepreneurs Award 
competition held by Entrepreneurs Organization (EO) in Brazil. In concluding that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that he can satisfy this criterion, the Director referenced a letter from the founding 
member ofEO that was submitted in response to the RFE but did not otherwise address the Petitioner's 
claims or evidence related to this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director 
3 
made a conclusory determination without reviewing most of the submitted evidence, particularly his 
activities withl I which were not acknowledged in the decision. On remand, the Director 
should review the record, including the appeal, and issue a new determination with respect to this 
criterion based on the totality of the evidence the Petitioner submitted. 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's 
decision did not sufficiently address most of the evidence he submitted and summarily concludes that 
his original contributions, though "of national importance," have not substantially impacted the 
business field. We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that it is difficult to discern based on the 
Director's decision what specific evidence was considered in reaching this determination. As the 
decision only vaguely referenced "letters" in the analysis of this criterion, without specifically 
identifying any documents, the Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and all evidence 
submitted in support of those claims when evaluating this criterion on remand. 
Finally, the Petitioner has consistently claimed that he can satisfy the "leadin or critical roles" 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his long tenure as resident of and 
based on his role as managing director and country manager for The decision, 
however, does not specifically acknowledge this claim and only briefly lists some of the evidence 
submitted in response to the RFE, without any reference to the initial evidence or the Petitioner's 
primary claim. In fact, the only evidence specifically addressed in the analysis is a letter from a client 
of the Petitioner's current employer that was not submitted in support of this criterion. The Director 
also determined that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that "the organization or establishment has 
a distinguished reputation," but it is unclear what "organization" is referenced; the Petitioner did 
submit evidence intended to establish that bothl I andl I enjoy a distinguished 
reputation in the industry, and the Director did not address why this evidence was not sufficient to 
meet the Petitioner's burden. We therefore remand the matter to the Director to re-examine the 
evidence submitted in support of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner has not specifically contested the Director's determination with respect to 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), which requires evidence that the individual has commanded 
a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the same field. 
Nevertheless, as the matter is being remanded for the reasons set forth above, the Director should 
review the evidence submitted in support of this criterion. As is the case with the other criteria, the 
denial only briefly addresses evidence submitted in response to the RFE and does not reflect that the 
totality of the submitted evidence was analyzed in reaching the adverse conclusion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). If after review the 
Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the decision should include an 
analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, his 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)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
4 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5