remanded EB-1A Case: Fund Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18360658 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a state retirement system, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a fund manager, as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. See 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, the Petitioner did not 
show the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 a 
beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the 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 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). 
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 record indicates that the Beneficiary received a Master of Business Management from the I _ 
(Philippines) in 1998 and holds the designation of Chartered Financial 
Analyst. The Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary since 2008, most recently in the position of 
Fund Manager Lead. 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Beneficiary must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary met all of the four claimed evidentiary criteria. Specifically, 
the Director determined that the Beneficiary met the evidentiary criteria pertaining to judging the work 
of others, authorship of scholarly articles, serving in a leading or critical role for an organization with 
a distinguished reputation, and high salary or other significantly high remuneration. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), (viii), and (ix). 
As the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements, the Director proceeded to a final merits 
determination. 1 In a final merits determination, the Director must examine and weigh all of the 
evidence in the record to determine whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has the 
high level of expertise required for this immigrant classification. 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. 2 Specifically, the Director 
was required to evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the Beneficiary's sustained national 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing that 
objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act). 
2 See also Id. (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
2 
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. On 
appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the record demonstrates the Beneficiary's sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
In addition, on appeal the Petitioner contends that the Director erred "by denying the petition for the 
absence of particular types of predetermined evidence." We agree with that assertion. For example, 
regarding letters from the Beneficiary's employer and work colleagues, the Director's decision notes 
"a common deficiency within each of the letters as they expressed a great appreciation for [the 
Beneficiary's] work, abilities, and achievements, yet none sufficiently explained how any of his 
contributions were original or of major significance in the field. Nor does the [B]eneficiary make such 
an argument within any of his correspondence .... " The Director appears to be referring to elements 
of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which can be satisfied with evidence of an individual's 
original contributions of major significance in their field. The record reflects that the Petitioner did 
not claim that the Beneficiary satisfies this evidentiary criterion. 
Similarly, the Director's decision states that "[n]o press or media coverage was shown in the evidence 
that would contribute to a finding that [the Beneficiary] has sustained national or international claim" 
and "[n Jo evidence was supplied to indicate [the Beneficiary] was the recipient of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards .... " The Director seems to be referring to elements of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii), which can be satisfied, respectively, with evidence of 
lesser national or internationally recognized awards and published material about the individual in 
certain media. Again, the record reflects that the Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary satisfies 
these evidentiary criteria. Because he neither claimed nor submitted evidence in support of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (v), it was inappropriate to analyze whether the Petitioner has 
shown evidence of the Beneficiary's awards, published materials, or contributions which were 
"original or of major significance" in his field, and to weigh the lack of such evidence as a negative 
factor in determining eligibility. 
In addition, we note that the Director had already determined that the Beneficiary's role with the 
Petitioner satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires that the Petitioner 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished 
organizations. The Director's subsequent statements, that the record did not reflect "that [the 
Beneficiary's] role was leading [ for the Petitioner] .... nor reflect his critical role performed for [ the 
Petitioner]," or "that his role[ s] for other organizations were considered leading or critical," were 
contradictory to this determination and not explained. 
Further, we find that the Director did not properly conduct a final merits determination in which he 
considered all the evidence together in its totality. For example, although the Director determined that 
the Beneficiary satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), (viii), and (ix), the evidence 
related to the judging and scholarly articles criteria is not examined and weighed in the final merits 
discussion. Because the Director did not consider this evidence in the final merits analysis, the 
decision did not sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is 
an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
3 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also 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). Here, the Director's decision did not 
adequately explain the reasons for denial of the petition. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed, 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 Beneficiary 
satisfied at least three criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record, 
including additional evidence the Petitioner has provided on appeal. The Director should evaluate 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's 
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)(l)(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 decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4