remanded EB-1A Case: Carbohydrate Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2024 In Re: 33361971 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a carbohydrate chemist research scientist, 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 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence establishing that he had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria for this classification as set forth in the regulations. Namely, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied the requirements of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), which require 
evidence that he participated as a judge of the work of others in field and evidence that he wrote 
scholarly articles that were published in major trade publications, respectively. However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met the requirements of the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires evidence that the Petitioner made original scientific or 
scholarly contributions of major significance in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not properly assess the submitted evidence and 
entirely overlooked the Petitioner's claim that he satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
which requires evidence that the Petitioner received a lesser nationally or internally recognized prize 
or award. While the Director acknowledged the newly submitted evidence, she did not discuss or 
mention the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), nor did she acknowledge that the additional evidence 
was submitted in support of this criterion and instead assessed the evidence with respect to the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Further, regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner correctly points out that 
although the Director acknowledged his submission of letters of recommendation, the Director did not 
discuss the contents of those letters and thus did not adequately explain how the evidence fell short of 
supporting the Petitioner's claim pertaining to this criterion. 
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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review and 
because of the deficiencies discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the 
matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2