remanded EB-1A Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 InRe: 31125314 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a lead data analyst, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements for this classification, either by 
demonstrating her receipt of a major, international award or by satisfying at least three of the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, in the request for evidence (RFE) and the denial decision, 
the Director also addressed eligibility criteria pertinent to a separate classification. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&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. 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act if: 
• They have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• Their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the future. 
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 their one-
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then they must provide documentation that they meet at least three of the ten categories 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
do not readily apply to their occupation. 
Where a petitioner demonstrates that they meet 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 I 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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
The Petitioner is a lead data analyst. The record reflects that she intends to pursue work in the same 
field in the United States. The Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Workers, that she requested classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, as contemplated 
by section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not indicate on the Form 1-140 that she was 
applying for a national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 53(b )(2)(B)(i). 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . The Petitioner submitted evidence relating to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), and (viii), summarized below: 
• Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• Membership in associations in the field; and 
• Performance in leading or critical roles. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner "does not meet at least three of the ten criteria." However, 
although the RFE and the denial decision acknowledged that the Petitioner requested classification as 
an individual of extraordinary ability, they also requested documentation and/or discussed factors 
pertinent to the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), a classification other than that which the 
Petitioner requested. Moreover, although the denial decision indicated that "USCIS will analyze the 
evidence that was submitted under each criterion," the analysis does not reflect the Director's 
consideration of any of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence with respect to the three claimed 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not carefully review and consider the evidence 
submitted and arguments made in support of the petition and did not "adequately state an applicable 
basis for denial of the previously submitted petition." The Petitioner maintains on appeal that she is 
eligible for the requested classification and asserts that the petition "included numerous letters of 
2 
support .... giving her application 'comparable evidence' to establish her eligibility for classification 
under INA § 203(b )(1 )(A)." 
Although we conduct de novo review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the 
Director's decision is insufficient for review. As stated, the analysis does not reflect the Director's 
consideration of any of the Petitioner's claims and evidence with respect to the three claimed criteria. 
An officer's written decision must fully explain the specific reasons for denial. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). When a decision does not meet these requirements, the petitioner does not have a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision on appeal. See 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's decision 
does not address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to the RFE with respect to the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), and (viii), we will remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence submitted in support of the petition 
to determine whether the Petitioner satisfied the plain language of at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and to issue a new decision. The Director should also review the Petitioner's 
appellate brief: which further discusses the previously submitted evidence provided in support of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and argues comparable evidence. 
If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfied at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
the new decision should evaluate, based on the totality of the evidence in the record, whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim, that 
she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 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. 
3