remanded EB-1A Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 3, 2025 In Re: 35770754 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a financial technology company that seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1)(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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award, nor did the petitioning organization demonstrate that he met at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo '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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l )(A)(i)-(iii) 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if a petitioner is able to demonstrate that the 
standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the Beneficiary's occupation. 
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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The petitioning organization presents the Beneficiary as one with extraordinary ability as a technology 
entrepreneur. The Beneficiary is a co-founder and chief executive officer of the petitioning 
organization. The petitioning organization provides an application programming interface allowing 
users to save their financial payment method across various web-based platforms. The organization 
has received venture capital funding from multiple prominent organizations. 
Because the Petitioner has neither indicated nor established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary met six of 
the regulatory criteria. The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to 
prizes or awards and performing in a leading or critical role, but it had not satisfied the criteria 
associated with membership, published material, authorship of scholarly articles, and display of the 
Beneficiary's work. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that it meets the same requirements it 
affirmatively asserted before the Director. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude 
the record supports granting at least one additional criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires: "Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly 
articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." The Petitioner 
offered evidence that the Beneficiary presented his work at multiple major trade shows for learned 
persons in his field, and the petitioning organization referred to the USCIS Policy Manual that makes 
allowances for such presentations to be considered as comparable evidence to this criterion. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
That policy lays the foundation for the Petitioner to claim comparable evidence on the Beneficiary's 
behalf under this criterion, which cuts against the Director's analysis when they disallowed any 
comparable evidence claims because there "is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the 
Petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the l O criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)." USCIS policy does not employ the approach as represented in the denial decision. 
Instead, it provides: 
Although officers do not consider comparable evidence where a particular criterion is 
readily applicable to the person's occupation, a criterion need not be entirely 
inapplicable to the person's occupation. Rather, the officer considers comparable 
evidence if the petitioner shows that a criterion is not easily applicable to the person's 
job or profession.U 
As with all extraordinary ability petitions, officers may consider comparable evidence 
in support of petitions for persons working in science, technology, engineering, or 
mathematics (STEM) fields. Specifically, if a petitioner demonstrates that a particular 
criterion does not readily apply to the person's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
evidence that is of comparable significance to that criterion to establish sustained 
acclaim and recognition. 
For instance, if the publication of scholarly articles is not readily applicable to a person 
whose occupation is in an industry rather than academia, a petitioner might demonstrate 
that the person's presentation of work at a major trade show is of comparable 
significance to that criterion. 
Id. Based on the evidence and the specific facts of this case, the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion's 
requirements through the submission of comparable evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As we discuss above, the Petitioner has overcome the Director's adverse determination relating to the 
required initial evidence by satisfying at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
record now supports proceeding to a final merits determination. We therefore do not need to discuss 
the other claimed criteria and reserve our discussion of those topics. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curium) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
The next step is to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the Beneficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim, 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. A final merits determination involves analyzing an individual's accomplishments and 
weighing the totality of the evidence to determine if their achievements are sufficient to demonstrate 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 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, and see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(8)(2). 
3 
The Director did not make a final merits determination. Rather than make such a determination in the 
first instance, we will remand the matter. The Director should consider any potentially relevant 
evidence of record, even it does not fit within one of the regulatory criteria or is not comparable 
evidence. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). The Director should also 
consider any other requirements such as whether the record reflects sustained acclaim on a national or 
international level, and whether the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4