remanded EB-1A Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 28, 2024 InRe : 31677520 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a cybersecurity professional in the field of business, seeks 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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 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 Christa'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 the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 
can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award. If that petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 a computer and network professional working in the cybersecurity and business fields. 
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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), membership in associations that require outstanding achievements 
• (iii), published material about the individual in professional or major media 
• (v), original contributions of major significance 
• (vi), authorship of scholarly articles 
• (vii), display of his work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
• (viii), evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The Director concluded the Petitioner met one criterion pertaining to the display of his work in the 
field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the display criteria, but he also satisfies two additional 
categories of evidence of published material about the individual in professional or major media and 
authorship of scholarly articles. Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies at least three 
criteria, we will remand the matter to the Director to evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context 
of a final merits determination to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated 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. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The plain language of this criterion requires evidence (1) of published material, (2) that the published 
material contains the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation, (3) that the 
published material is about the Petitioner relating to the Petitioner's work in the field, and (4) that the 
2 
published material qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media. The 
petitioner's evidence must satisfy every one of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence of published material in major media publications about the Petitioner should establish that 
the circulation (online or in print) or viewership is high compared to other statistics and identify the 
intended audience. Further, for purposes of this criterion, while published material need not be 
primarily or only about a petitioner to qualify, it cannot be solely about their employer or another 
organization with which they are associated. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.2. 
The record includes copies of several articles by media which discuss or mention the Petitioner and 
his work. The Director noted some issues with certain articles including incomplete translations and 
inconsistent information, but the Petitioner subsequently provided a complete and full translation of 
each article and explanations to overcome the Director's concerns. On appeal, he specifically 
discusses several articles where he was interviewed regarding his work in cybersecurity and business, 
and published in media outlets such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, Argumenty Nedeli, Forbes 
Kazakhstan, Esquire Kazakhstan, Cnews and Tech Times. The Petitioner also provided information 
regarding the circulation of each publication and how some publications achieved high publication 
rates. The evidence of record meets the plain language of this criterion, and we will withdraw the 
Director's conclusion on this specific matter. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director acknowledged that the record contains printouts of articles attributed to the Petitioner, 
posted online by differing web portals, along with Similarweb data regarding the web portals. 
However, the Director determined that the record does not establish how the articles are scholarly in 
nature, which require such aspects as research and work cited. Additionally, the Director determined 
that none of the publication sites are a major trade publication. On appeal, the Petitioner objects that 
the Director improperly imposed the criteria for scholarly articles in the academic arena rather than 
articles written for learned persons and contends that the publications qualify as major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The Petitioner correctly asserts that the non-academic articles authored by the Petitioner in the record 
do not implicate the criteria for academic articles described in the USCIS Policy Manual, including 
"footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www. 
uscis.gov/policy-manual. Instead, the criterion is that the articles in question "should be written for 
learned persons in that field," including "all persons having profound knowledge of a field." See id. 
For example, the Petitioner's article entitled, ____________________ 
is intended for learned persons in the Petitioner's fields of business and technology. Also, 
the publication qualifies as a professional or major trade publication since it is provided to experts, 
including top managers, business gurus, entrepreneurs, executives, and investors. The same was found 
for the article written by the Petitioner that were published in Habr.com and Kommersant. The record 
establishes the content of the articles written by the Petitioner were written for learned persons in the 
field, rather than laypersons in other fields, and information regarding the media indicate that more 
3 
I 
than one of those publishers are highly regarded among learned persons in the field. Therefore, the 
record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
For the reasons discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
further review and entry of a new decision. Because the Petitioner has established his qualifications 
under criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vi), and (vii), on remand, the Director should conduct a 
final merits review of the evidence of record. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for the handful of individuals at 
the top of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). As contemplated by Congress, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
the required sustained national or international acclaim, consistent with a "career of acclaimed work 
in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence 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)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4