remanded EB-1A Case: Children'S Book Author

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20509233 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 16, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a children's book author, seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska 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 evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3). Because we determined on appeal that the Petitioner did meet three of the 
evidentiary criteria, we remanded the petition for the Director to conduct a final merits determination. 
The Director denied the petition and the matter is again before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, then he or she must 
provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets 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. USCJS, 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);Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamalll), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021)(determiningthat 
EB-I visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
( citing Kazarian, 5 96 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c ]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (findingthat"arguably one of the most famous baseball players inKoreanhistmy" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no 
one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, the record must demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top 
of his field. See section203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In our prior decision, we explained that the record established that the Petitioner met the three criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (iv), and, as a result, we remanded the matter to the Director to 
perform a final merits determination. However, in addition to providing contradictory statements 
regarding whether the Petitioner had met three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x), the Director did not properly conduct such a determination. 
While we may agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's participation as a judge for a 
children's story writing competition in 2007 is not indicative of either sustained national or 
2 
international acclaim or being among the small percentage at the very top of his field, the Director 
must still examine and weigh the evidence related to the remaining criteria in the final merits 
discussion. Because the Director did not consider this evidence in the analysis, the decision did not 
sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is an individual of extraordinary 
ability under section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act. 
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 did not provide a 
complete analysis of the submitted evidence and full explanation of the reasons for denial in the final 
merits detennination, we will withdraw the decision and remand the matter for fmiher review and 
entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The Decision of the Director is withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for the entry of 
a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3