remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22338331 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 22, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a home appliance manufacturer , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(1 )(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary 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). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's 
decision was erroneous and that the Beneficiary meets at least three criteria as required . 
We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 
n.2 (AAO 2015). In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the 
requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision and remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the 
following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien 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 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 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); 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a global manufacturer and marketer of home appliances. 
The Beneficiary is currently employed as its of Strategy and Business 
Development at itsl I location. The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual 
of extraordinary ability in the field of business based on his expertise in the activation of category and 
digital growth strategies for consumer goods and retail companies. The record indicates that the 
Beneficiary holds a master's degree in business administration from the I I School of 
Management at University as well as a diploma in international business and cultural 
studies from the University of and has approximately 20 years of experience in his field. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must show that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director addressed evidence relating to five 
criteria: 
• (iii), Published material about the individual; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations; and 
• (ix), High salary. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary has held a 
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations and has commanded a high 
2 
salary. The record supports the Director's determination, and we agree that the Petitioner satisfied the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (ix). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 1 The Petitioner 
further argues that in addition to being arbitrary and capricious, the Director's decision ignored 
probative evidence in the record, failed to give evidentiary weight to credible documentation, and 
applied erroneous legal standards or impermissibly imposed novel substantive legal requirements. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Director's determinations 
regarding certain criteria were conclusory and did not specifically address the evidence the Petitioner 
submitted. 
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 
criterion claimed by the Petitioner. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In his decision, the Director simply stated that "the petitioner provided articles 
about various topics in which the beneficiary was mentioned or quoted," but declined to discuss or 
analyze any of the articles submitted or their contents. Instead, the Director reached a conclusory 
finding that the evidence was insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements. On remand, the 
Director is instructed to re-examine the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, including the 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal explaining how the evidence supports the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
With respect to the original contributions of major significance 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 submitted and instead summarily concluded that the Beneficiary's contributions have not 
substantially impacted the field as a whole despite determining that they have had an impact on the 
success of his employer. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner submitted evidence, including 
project materials, internal documentation, and presentations demonstrating the Beneficiary's original 
contributions, as well as expert testimonial letters commenting on such contributions and their effect 
on the field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that despite its submission of ample objective evidence 
both initially in support of the petition and in response to the request for evidence, the Director failed 
to consider or discuss any of this evidence in the denial. Regarding the expert letters, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director "arbitrarily dismissed the majority of the letters ... without analyzing the 
content of these letters in any way." We agree. The Director's decision devotes two sentences to two 
1 The Petitioner has not pursued its initial claim that the Beneficiary meets the criterion relating to authorship of scholarly 
articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), nor does it contest the Director's decision relating to this criterion on appeal. 
Therefore, we deem this issue to be waived and will not address this criterion in our decision. See. e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 
24 l&N Dec. 762. 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
3 
letters, respectively, and concludes simply that the authors of each letter did not provide examples of 
how the Beneficiary's contributions have impacted the field as a whole. The Director did not discuss 
the contents or subject matter of these letters, nor did he identify any specific deficiencies in these or 
any of the other letters. Moreover, the Director did not discuss the documentary evidence or the 
experts' commentary with regard to such documentation, which the Petitioner asserts demonstrates 
the Beneficiary's original contributions of major significance as contemplated by this criterion. The 
Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and all evidence submitted in support of those 
claims when evaluating this criterion in a new decision on remand. 
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. If after review the Director determines that 
the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three criteria, his decision should include 
an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's 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. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn and the matter remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4