remanded EB-1A Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 29, 2023 In Re: 28964376 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive and cybersecurity professional, 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 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 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 visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the noncitizen 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 noncitizen seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the noncitizen' 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 a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, the 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) (including items such as awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner establishes 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner avers the Beneficiary is a business leader with experience in the fields of business and 
science, specifically in the field of cyber security. It discussed the specific niche occupied by the 
Beneficiary within these two realms as follows in its response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE): 
[The Beneficiary] is a prolific writer and speaker on the topic of cybersecurity for 
business. His work in this area encompasses several facets of the field: Developing 
strategies for chief information security officers (CISO) and other IT and cyber­
responsible parties on how to set up their business IT systems to be the most protected 
from cyber threats; identifying and translating the techniques used by hackers to that 
CISOs and others can be better able to anticipate and react, as well as prevent 
cyberattacks. His work in the field spans both the categories of science and business, 
therefore we are requesting that he be classified as a person of extraordinary ability in 
this hybrid field. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must show that he satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary can satisfy the following 
criteria: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual and their work; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
2 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner only submitted evidence sufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary met the criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) relating to authorship. 
After reviewing the record in its totality, we conclude that the Director's determinations with respect 
to the referenced criteria not met were conclusory and did not adequately address the collective entirety 
of the Petitioner's claims or evidence. 
An officer must folly 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 e.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Because the Director's decision does not 
provide a complete analysis and foll explanation of the reasons for denial, we will withdraw that 
decision and remand for farther review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion 
below. That decision should include an analysis of the specific evidence submitted in support of each 
criterion claimed by the Petitioner. 
While the Director may not ultimately discuss each and every document in the record in their decision, 
they should collectively consider and review each one in determining whether the Beneficiary is 
eligible for the benefit sought in this petition. With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In other words, a 
petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. users examines 
"each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within 
the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." 
Additionally, to determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, 
users considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (eomm'r 1989). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not satisfy the criterion at 8 e.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires submission of evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's receipt 
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary could meet this criterion based on his receipt of 
several awards, including the awards he received from the.__ ______ __,:, which are evidenced 
in the record, as well as a letter from the founder of this organization who described the criteria for 
several of the awards recently garnered by the Beneficiary from this organization. For instance, the 
founder discusses the significance of the Beneficiary's Iwhich the Beneficiary won 
out of pool of 2000 nominated candidates including representatives of forty countries. Of these 
nominees, 20 cybersecurity professionals were selected for the award. The founder farther notes that 
this award "recognizes those who have made important and helpful contributions to the realm of 
cybersecurity, of which [the Beneficiary] is certainly one." 
In the denial, the Director generally indicates among other things that the Beneficiary's awards "appear 
to be local or regional in nature, and it has not been established that the prizes or awards were given 
for excellence in the Beneficiary's field of endeavor. ... " While the Director lists some of the awards 
3 
garnered by the Beneficiary in the denial, they do not discuss the specific evidence submitted by the 
Petitioner in support of this claim. As the matter will be remanded, the Director is instructed to re­
examine the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, including the Petitioner's accompanying 
letters and other evidence such as media articles and information from the awarding institutions' 
websites explaining how the evidence supports the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
With respect to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner submitted 
no less than 20 published articles about the Beneficiary and his work in the field of endeavor. The 
Director's decision does not specifically reference any of these articles and their analysis consists of a 
conclusory statement that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the circulation of the 
publications. However, the record indicates the Petitioner's submission of documentation in support 
of its claim that one or more of the submitted articles was published in a major trade publication or 
other major media. Therefore, the decision reflects an incomplete review of the evidence submitted 
in support of this criterion. On remand, the Director should review the record to determine whether 
the Beneficiary met this criterion at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's 
decision did not sufficiently address the evidence it submitted and summarily concludes that the 
"Petitioner failed to demonstrate how [the Beneficiary's] contributions amounted to original work and 
how his work impacted the field as a whole in a major and significant way." We agree with the 
Petitioner's assertion that it is difficult to discern based on the Director's decision what specific 
evidence was considered in reaching this determination. The Director acknowledged in the denial that 
the Beneficiary has authored books on cybersecurity issues, submitted independent reviews of those 
books, as well as reference and testimonial letters about their significance, and that he contributed to 
the creation of an exam blueprint for the certification of cybersecurity professionals. As the decision 
only vaguely explains that the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility 
in the analysis of this criterion, without specifically discussing the collective evidence in the record, 
the Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and evidence when evaluating this criterion on 
remand. 
Also, based on our de novo review on appeal, we observe that the Petitioner has discussed and 
submitted documentation regarding the "leading or critical roles" that the Beneficiary has performed 
for major corporations and other institutions that employed him during his 20-year career as a cyber 
security professional. The record contains evidence which suggests that the Beneficiary may also 
meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his tenure in roles, such as CISO, managing 
director, cyber security architect, and vice president of various institutions. 
In general, a leading role may be evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which an 
individual is responsible for the success or standing of an organization or establishment that enjoys a 
"distinguished reputation." Id. To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary 
has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization, establishment, or a division or 
department of an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
For a leading role, we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is (or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish that a role is (or was), in fact, leading. For a critical role, we 
4 
determine whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of such 
a division or department of the organization or establishment. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. On remand, the Director may decide to evaluate the 
evidence of record to determine if the Beneficiary meets this criterion as well. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) which addresses the 
submission of "comparable evidence," if it is determined that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do 
not readily apply to the Beneficiary's occupation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) addresses 
comparable evidence and allows a petitioner the opportunity to submit "comparable" evidence to establish 
his or her eligibility, if USCIS determines that a criterion does not readily apply to the individual's 
occupation. See id. A petitioner should explain why it has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at 
least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as well as why the evidence it has included is 
"comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See id. Here, the Petitioner does not show 
that the standard criteria do not readily apply to the Beneficiary's occupation. On appeal, it asks us to 
consider the applicability of the Beneficiary's published works under the authorship criterion located at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) - which the Director determined the Beneficiary satisfied, outright. As 
discussed, it also maintains throughout this proceeding that the Beneficiary satisfies several other criteria. 
We conclude the Petitioner has not adequately explained its contention that the comparable evidence 
clause applies in this matter. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). If after review the 
Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the decision should include an 
analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and 
whether the record demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the 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. 
Based upon the deficiencies discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for farther review and entry of a new decision. Should the Director conclude upon review 
that the Beneficiary meets three of the evidentiary criteria, the new decision should include a final 
merits analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary possesses the requisite sustained national or 
international acclaim and is 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. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5