remanded EB-1A Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 32942380 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a delivery practice manager in data analytics, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 had satisfied at least 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 Christo '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 this matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification 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 United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 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, a 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). 
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. 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 delivery practice manager for __________ a multi-billion-dollar 
information technology company that provides cloud computing products and services. Her position 
entails the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to interpret large quantities of data to 
identify patterns that companies use for data analysis, as well as holding responsibility for technical 
guidance and the ultimate delivery of projects. The Petitioner intends to continue her work in data 
analytics in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met one of the criteria she claimed to have satisfied: 
her participation as a judge of the work of others within her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
record supports that determination. However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish 
that she meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), (vi), (viii), or (ix). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that she meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vi), (viii), and (ix), and she contends 
that the Director incorrectly evaluated supporting evidence. Upon review, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (viii), and (ix). 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner does not dispute the Director's conclusion regarding this criterion on appeal. Therefore, 
we deem this issue to be waived, and we will not address this criterion further. See, e.g., Matter ofM­
A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. at 767 n.2. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petititioner asserts that she has performed in leading and critical roles for establishments that have 
distinguished reputations, including,__ _____ The record demonstrates that these are multi-
billion-dollar companies in the fields of cloud computing and energy production, respectively. While 
the Director did not dispute the reputations of these businesses, they determined that the record did 
not establish that the Petitioner's role "has been leading or critical to as a whole, beyond the 
2 
I 
organization's need for skillful, highly competent" data practice managers, and that her work "on 
various projects is inherent to her occupation." We note that, in evaluating whether an individual has 
performed in 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. For a critical role, 
we look at 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 a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. 1 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted documentation of an award she received for her leadership on an 
effort to provide a tailored list of offerings for the sales team to present to public sector customers 
during the upcoming year. The Petitioner also submitted documentation describing her critical role in 
managing a portfolio of $50 million for a division of that delivers data analytics solutions to 
public sector clients, primarily for state and local governments and higher education institutions. She 
also submitted evidence concerning various projects in which she was involved, including media 
coverage of those projects, and several detailed letters of support from superiors and colleagues 
discussing both her leading and critical roles in projects for and for previous employers. For 
example, at I I the Petitioner led a team on a ninety-seven-million-dollar project to expand the 
lonline learning programs to working adults, military members, and 
students from underserved counties in the state. As another example, she served as I I technical 
leader for a project involving the movement of the data to the 
cloud. And while employed atl Ishe led the migration process of critical data and applications 
to a cloud-based platform, the design of which minimized operational disruptions and resulted in 
significant cost savings and improved efficiency within the organization. We conclude that the 
Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence that meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of financial documents 
and webpages showing salaries for data practice managers employed by I I The Director 
determined that the Petitioner's earnings of approximately $254,000 in 2022 were not higher than the 
highest reported salary for others in her field atl I which was approximately $288,000. We note 
that the plain language of the criterion does not limit an individual's relative salary or remuneration to 
others' earnings from a particular employer but, instead, refers only to the earnings of others within 
the individual's field. The Petitioner initially submitted documentation showing salary ranges for 
other big data analysts working for several companies, including IBM and Apple, which offered the 
highest salaries at $152,000 and $189,000 per year, respectively-a difference of about $102,000 and 
$65,000 from her 2022 earnings. In addition, on appeal, the Petitioner points to her receipt of restricted 
stock units, which includes shares she received in 2021 valued at approximately $33,152 and stock in 
2023 valued at approximately $75,599. The Petitioner also submitted wage information from 
O*NET-the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupation Information Network-which demonstrates 
that she has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation 
1 See generally https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
3 
to others in the field. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the 
requisite three of ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
(viii), and (ix). We therefore need not consider whether she met additional claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) or (vi). 
We will withdraw the Director's denial of the petition and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the 
new determination and any other issues. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this matter on remand. On remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of 
the evidence of record. 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, her sustained 
national or international acclaim, her status as one of the small percentage at the very top of her field 
of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4