remanded EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering And Construction Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 27, 2025 In Re: 35109135 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer and construction manager, seeks first preference immigrant 
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 Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, concluding that the record 
did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the 
recipient of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone 
who initially satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider which the 
Director dismissed, concluding that while the Petitioner claimed to have met four of the regulatory 
criteria, the evidence he submitted did not show that he satisfied any of those criteria. The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Ch rista's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we conclude that the Director did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. 
We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision 
consistent with the analysis below. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• They have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• They seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Their work would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b )(I)( A )(i)-(iii) 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 can demonstrate 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that the beneficiary 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 demonstrates that the beneficiary 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. 20 l 0) ( 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. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As previously indicated, the Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis or adequately explain 
the deficiencies in the evidence. 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). 
In dismissing the Petitioner's motion, the Director acknowledged that a motion to reopen and a motion 
to reconsider are distinct with their own regulatory requirements, which the Director included in the 
introductory portion of the decision. Yet, despite providing this information on the two different types 
of motions, the Director did not include an analysis applying each set of regulatory provisions to the 
Petitioner's submissions to explain the shortcomings that prompted the adverse decision. In fact, the 
Director ambiguously referred to the Petitioner's filing as a "Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider" 
and broadly concluded that the evidence contained in four motion exhibits "does not demonstrate that 
you [the Petitioner] meet the criterion (ii, vi, viii, and ix) and that you [the Petitioner] are coming to 
the US to continue working as indicated in the denial." The Director did not explain how the evidence 
was deficient in meeting the motion requirements, nor did the Director address any of the arguments 
made in a supporting legal brief the Petitioner submitted with the four motion exhibits. 
Further, while the Director stated that "USCIS will not readdress previously presented evidence and 
arguments," the record shows that the Director's denial lacked an adequate discussion of the responses 
the Petitioner provided in a 14-page statement that was included in his response to a request for 
evidence (RFE). In lieu of discussing the Petitioner's responses to claims concerning the criteria at 
2 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vi), and (viii), 1 the Director made the following determination: "In 
response to the RFE, you submitted no evidence." This determination indicates that the Director did 
not deem the Petitioner's RFE response statement as evidence even though the Petitioner addressed 
all four criteria in that statement. As such, the Director's decision to "not readdress previously 
presented evidence" inaccurately suggests that the evidence, including the RFE response statement, 
was addressed in the first place. Here, the record shows that it was not. Importantly, the Director also 
did not address the evidence the Petitioner submitted in support of his motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider, thereby precluding a meaningful opportunity to appeal the Director's adverse decision. 
A motion decision must identify and fully explain its reasoning. Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786, 
787-88 (BIA 1994). Otherwise, such a decision deprives a party of a fair opportunity to contest the 
opinion on appeal and it deprives us of the ability to meaningfully review the decision. Id.; see also 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l)(i) (requiring USCIS, in the context of application and petition denials, to 
"explain in writing the specific reasons for denial"). 
Because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and clearly apply 
the regulatory standards, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. Our decision to 
withdraw the Director's decision in no way indicates that the petition should be approved. However, 
if the Director reaches an adverse decision, the basis for that decision must be adequately explained. 
Id. The Director should request any additional evidence warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit 
such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 Regarding 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the fourth of the total criteria claimed by the Petitioner, the Director acknowledged 
the Petitioner's RFE response and explained why the evidence did not satisfy this criterion. 
3