remanded EB-1A Case: Business And Invention

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 18, 2024 In Re: 33815651 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business-owner and inventor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least 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 I&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 this matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of a beneficiary 's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must 
provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that a beneficiary meets at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 Petitioner is the founder and manager of a company that provides maintenance and emergency 
snow removal and sanitation services. The Petitioner has patented several inventions, including 
technology to operate snow-removal vehicles by wireless remote-control, which is regularly used in 
his company's contract work with government and institutions in China. The Petitioner intends to 
continue his work by starting a business in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that he meets the claimed criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (viii), or (ix). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he 
meets these criteria and indicates that the Director did not fully evaluate the supporting evidence. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Director's decision does not provide a complete analysis and full 
explanation of the reasons for denial with respect many of the criteria that the Petitioner claims to 
meet. 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 ofM-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). 
For example, regarding 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner submitted documentation for awards 
that he has won, includin reco nition as a National Outstandin Entre reneur
I from the and his 
recei t of the To Ten Pioneers of the at the 
In denying the petition, the Director stated 
that the Petitioner did not submit documentation of media coverage to establish that the awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized, which the Petitioner asserts on appeal is not required evidence 
and is a factor in the Director's decision that does not account for the specialized nature of the field of 
heavy industrial technology. The Petitioner also initially submitted documentation to demonstrate that 
his awards are nationally known within the enterprise management and public emergency management 
industries as conferring recognition of excellence in leadership. Evidence includes news articles, 
information from the awarding organizations and from government websites, and letters from 
professionals in the Petitioner's field. The Director did not address this evidence, stating only that the 
Petitioner submitted evidence that included "unreliable sources" that carry "no evidentiary weight 
within the proceedings." 
2 
Further, regarding 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner submitted documentation showing that he 
has been interviewed by several media outlets about his business, and the Director asserted that these 
articles did not constitute professional or major media because their sources were platforms open to 
the public that allowed for self-publication. The Director did not, however, address documentation 
submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE) to clarify the operation of some of these 
websites, including a document from the International Communications Consultancy Organisation 
which discusses information collection in China. The Director also did not address an article in the 
record from China Construction News discussing the Petitioner's company's response to the pandemic 
early in 2020 under the Petitioner's leadership. The translated article shows the title, date, and author, 
and documentation demonstrating its use as an information source in an article by Reuters-an 
internationally known news agency. 
Additionally, regarding 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner submitted news articles, letters from 
professionals in the industry, and copies of financial information and contracts which show that the 
Petitioner's company consistently works with publicly known entities in China, including government 
institutions and airports, and was contracted to provide services for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games. 
The Petitioner also submitted documentation demonstrating that his company has won numerous 
awards within the industry and has achieved specific standards set by the government to operate as an 
academician workstation, a provincial-level technical center, and an enterprise design center-the 
requirements of which involve investments and successes in research and development. The record 
also includes documentation from a government source citing the Petitioner's company among 
recognized brand names in China. The Director did not specifically address this evidence and turned 
again to general assertions concerning "unreliable internet sources." 
As explained previously, an officer must provide 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. On remand, the Director should analyze the specific evidence submitted 
to establish whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner has met the requirements 
of at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director should 
ensure that the decision, if averse to the Petitioner, provides adequate reasoning to explain why the 
submitted evidence is insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof 
Finally, we observe that the Director dismissed English translations of evidence that he stated were 
"not properly certified" because the certification did not "specifically identify the document or 
documents it purportedly accompanies"; however, our review of the record shows that, in response to 
the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an updated affidavit certifying the accuracy of the translations and 
listing the documents translated. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion above and 
taking into consideration all properly certified English translations. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based upon the deficiencies discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's denial of the petition 
and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. The Director may request any 
additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issues. As such, we 
3 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this matter on remand. Should the Director 
conclude upon review that the Petitioner meets three of the evidentiary criteria, the new decision 
should include a final merits analysis of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, his status as one 
of the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4