remanded EB-1A Case: Forensic Investigations And Information Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 07, 2024 In Re: 31381446 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive specializing in forensic investigations, fraud prevention and 
information security, 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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification but did not establish, as 
required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at 
the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision lacks analysis and discussion of the evidence 
in the record and is insufficient for review. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to noncitizens who: have 
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; seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and will substantially benefit the United States upon their entry. 
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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); 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). 
As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must demonstrate that he meets the initial evidence requirements by satisfying 
at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed that he could 
meet seven of these ten criteria, and the Director determined that he met three of them. Specifically, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to judging the work of others in 
the same field, authorship of scholarly articles, and performance in a leading or critical role with 
organizations that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi) and (viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that he meets the criteria 
related to lesser nationally recognized awards or prizes, membership in associations that require 
outstanding achievements of their members, original contributions of major significance in his field, 
and receipt of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v) and (ix). 
Because the Petitioner demonstrated that he met the initial evidence requirements, the Director 
proceeded to a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze 
all of a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to properly conduct a final merits 
determination in which they considered all the evidence together in its totality, noting that the 
Director's final merits analysis fails to address most of the evidence he submitted and should be 
overturned for that reason. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director's final merits analysis is lacking a detailed 
discussion of the evidence provided in support of the petition. Although the Petitioner submitted 
evidence related to seven of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the final merits discussion 
only briefly addresses evidence relating to the three criteria the Director determined that he had 
satisfied, rather than considering the evidence in its totality. Such evidence included documentation 
related to the Petitioner's receipt of an award that garnered him some media attention, evidence related 
to his professional memberships accompanied by letters explaining their significance, evidence of his 
contributions to the field, evidence related to his prior leading role as the founder of a successful 
2 
company, and reference letters that address his standing in his field. Because the Director did not 
consider any of this evidence in the final merits determination, the decision did not sufficiently address 
why the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the requested classification. Further, in the 
final merits analysis, officers must consider any potentially relevant evidence in the record, even if 
such evidence does not relate to or satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See 
generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
An officer must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(i). In adjudicating a petition filed under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, the officer must 
articulate the specific reasons why they concluded that the petitioner has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the person has extraordinary ability. Here, for the reasons 
discussed above, the Director's decision did not adequately explain the reasons for denial. As such, 
the Petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to contest the decision. Cf Matter ofM-P-, 20 T&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). 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. As the Director already determined that the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
criteria, the Director should evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, his 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 )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The new decision should 
include an analysis of the totality of the record, including additional evidence the Petitioner has 
provided on appeal and the evidence submitted in support of all claimed initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3