remanded EB-1A Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2024 In Re: 33752638 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, 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 met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Petitioner's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting 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 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 
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 )( 1 )(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 their 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 they meet 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). 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-2. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a financial manager who has held positions ofresponsibility in various capital venture 
firms and founded her own investment firm, I I (N-). 1 She provided documentary evidence 
about her work within this field, including among other things, testimonial letters, major media articles 
and other forms of recognition of her capital investment activities and those of her employers and 
clients. The Petitioner intends to pursue her career in the venture capital industry in the United States. 
She asserts: 
[I am] a well-accomplished financial expert in the venture capital arena, holding 
significant positions at two distinguished firms [K- and N-]. In these roles, [I have] 
spearheaded angel-round investments for over 100 startups, significantly impacting the 
growth of many notable technology companies. Beyond providing financial supports, 
[I] also significantly contributed to talent acquisition, the provision of technological 
resources, and strategic development guidance. [I] enabled these startups to tap into a 
vast network of industry contacts, potential customers, partners and investors, aiding 
in the ascent of [currently NASDAQ-listed companies] from their early stages to 
successful public listings. 
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 two of the regulatory criteria by providing 
sufficient evidence that material had been published about her in major trade publications or major 
media and had judged the work of others in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (iv). On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets two other criteria, including the leading or critical 
role with a distinguished organization criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). She asserts that the 
Director erred in determining that she did not meet the plain language of these two criteria. 
1 The Petitioner indicated in the petition that she intends to be employed within the "Financial Managers" occupation 
should this petition be approved. DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Financial 
Managers," may be viewed athttps://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/11-3031.00. 
2 
As more fully discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). Because the Petitioner has shown that she 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 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. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
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 the organization or establishment. To meet this 
criterion, the person must establish that they have performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization, establishment, or a division or department of an organization or establishment. 
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 
determine whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in significantly important 
ways to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a division or 
department of the organization or establishment. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner contended before the Director that she performed in leading or critical roles for the 
venture capital firms where she was employed, including K- and N-. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not meet this criterion concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence that she had 
contributed in a significantly important way to these firms. They also determined that the Petitioner 
only provided general information about these firms and did not, for instance, establish that these firms 
enjoyed distinguished reputations by offering sufficient evidence, such as material about the awards, 
recognition, or achievements garnered by these organizations. Based on our de novo review of the 
record, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
sufficient to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider the significance of her 
responsibilities and contributions to K- and N-. For instance, she points to initially submit evidence 
about her employment with K-, noting that her employment verification letter from K- offered "an 
organizational chart detailing her position as an Early-Stage Fund Managing Partner and detailed her 
responsibilities in fundraising and co-managing RMB funds of 1.5 billion yuan and USD funds of 
$170 million." 
The Petitioner also references other evidence about her work with K-, including an email issued by K­
contemporaneous to her resignation from that company that detailed and acknowledged her 
contributions to the company, and media reports showing that she garnered I 
Investor of the Year in 2016" while employed with K-. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that 
the Petitioner played a leading or critical role for K-. The Petitioner also provided evidence to 
3 
I 
demonstrate that K- manages over 600 portfolio companies across a variety of industries and enjoys a 
distinguished reputation in the Petitioner's home country, earning industry awards for excellence 
within the venture capital field. 
The testimonial letters, media reports and documentary evidence about N-' s business activities in the 
record indicates that the Petitioner founded this company in 201 7, holds a 99% ownership share 
position therein, and "is the highest decision-maker in the organization." The record reflects that N­
is the management company for (N- Fund) and earned over $26 million in revenue in 2022. N- has 
made investments in over 60 startup companies since its inception, in some cases securing follow-on 
financing from investment institutions, such as S-, T-, and A-. The Petitioner has also provided 
evidence that N- has garnered industry awards for excellence within the capital investment field as 
reported by various media outlets in the Petitioner's home country, which suggests it enjoys a 
distinguished reputation there. 
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Petitioner that, more likely than not, she meets the plain 
language requirements for this criterion through performing leading or critical roles for entities that 
possess distinguished reputations, and the Director erred in concluding otherwise. We withdraw this 
aspect of the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. 
Because the Petitioner has established her qualifications under criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
(iv), and (viii), on remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of the evidence of record. 
As extraordinary ability is an elite level of accomplishment whose recognition necessarily entails a 
judgement call, it cannot be established through meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria alone. 
The final merits determination is the ultimate statutory inquiry of whether the applicant has 
extraordinary ability as demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim. Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, at 395 (2022). 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, 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)(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