remanded EB-1A Case: Geophysics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2023 In Re: 28805817 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research geophysicist, seeks classification as an individual 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 Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval, determining the Petitioner knowingly made a false representation 
of a material fact in support of his petition. 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 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 
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 
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). 
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. 20 I 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." Regarding revocation on 
notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing the petition in December 2015, the Petitioner stated he was employed as a research 
physicist atl land indicated his work was focused on seismic modeling, imaging, 
and anisotropy. He received his doctor of philosophy degree in earth science atl ~ 
2 
The Petitioner did not initially indicate or establish that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, but sought to satisfy at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed to meet the criteria relating to judging the work 
of others, original contributions of major significance, and authorship of scholarly articles. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi). In support of his claims of meeting those criteria and 
demonstrating his sustained national and international acclaim and that his achievements have been 
recognized through extensive documentation, the Petitioner submitted evidence including completed 
independent requests to review a number of manuscripts for professional publications; expert 
recommendation letters; his scholarly articles; and articles that have cited to his work. 
Ultimately, the Director approved the petition in January 2016, and the Petitioner was granted lawful 
permanent resident status on April 18, 2016, with a USCIS lawful permanent resident class code of 
E 16. In November 2020 the U.S. Embassy in Guangzhou returned the petition to the Director and 
recommended revocation. On March 30, 2023, the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) 
and informed the Petitioner of the following: 
The Department of State returned the I-140 to USCIS because it appeared that the 
beneficiary was not eligible for the requested benefit OR after a review of the record, 
it appears that the petitioner did not submit relevant, probative, and credible evidence 
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary is eligible for the 
requested benefit. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) and any 
other fact. Therefore, USCTS intends to revoke the approval of Form T-140. 
In this case the following issues independently form the basis for this intended 
revocation and will be discussed in this notice: 
• Fraud was found within the petitioners submitted documentation by the 
[N]ational Visa Center Fraud Prevention Unit. 
In accordance to the memorandum return[ed] to the Texas Service Center from the 
National Visa Center, dated November 18, 2020, it states the beneficiary submitted 
fraudulent documents to establish that it has satisfied each adjudicative element to 
establish eligibility for the requested benefit indicating that the beneficiary is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Furthermore, the Director discussed the qualifying documentation that may satisfy the initial evidence 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and stated: 
If the beneficiary believes the beneficiary qualifies under any of the regulatory criteria 
that USCIS has determined that the beneficiary has failed to establish eligibility under, 
or any additional regulatory criteria, the beneficiary should submit clarifying evidence, 
or submit additional evidence in response to this portion of the notice o[±1 intent to 
deny. 
3 
As the beneficiary has not submitted evidence to demonstrate the beneficiary has met 
at least three of the 10 regulatory criteria. 
USCIS must now examine the evidence presented in its entirety to make a final merits 
determination of whether or not the beneficiary, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
has demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses the high level of expertise required for 
the E 11 immigrant classification. 
As discussed, USCIS has evaluated the evidence and determined that the evidence does 
not establish that the beneficiary is an individual of extraordinary ability in accordance 
with 203(b)(l)(A)(l) of the INA. 
In conclusion, the petitioner did not establish that it has satisfied each adjudicative 
element to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Therefore, the following 
issues independently form the basis for this intended revocation: 
• Fraud was found within the petitioners submitted documentation by the [N]ational 
Visa Center Fraud Prevention Unit. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner asserted that he did not commit fraud in relation to the filing 
of his petition and that he has demonstrated his eligibility for classification as an induvial of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. He argued, through counsel, that although the NOIR indicates 
the existence of derogatory evidence in the form of "fraudulent documents," it "fails to state which 
allegedly fraudulent documents were submitted" and "thus the Petitioner can only guess as to what 
the issue may be." Citing Matter of Estime, the Petitioner asserted that since the NOIR contains 
unsupported statements and he has not been advised of the derogatory evidence, "revocation of the 
visa petition cannot be sustained." Further, he provided documentation that "explained and rebutted 
any potential allegation of fraud based on his work experience since it was noted directly on his I-20 
and has also provided evidence through W-2 forms." 
The Petitioner also submitted "supplemental evidence showing that he satisfies at lease three of the 
ten criteria," including evidence of serving as a book editor, a Google Scholar Profile now showing 
453 total citations to his published work, evidence of two granted and three pending patents, and 
additional peer-reviewed abstracts in scholarly publications. Moreover, the Petitioner provided 
documentation in support of his claim to meet two additional criteria, relating to leading or critical 
role and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (ix). 
In revoking the petition's approval, the Director stated: 
On March 22, 2023, [USCIS] issued a Notice oflntent to Revoke[] the approval of the 
Form I-140 petition to the petitoner. 
In view of the above, USCIS has revoked the approval of this Form I-140 petition. 
4 
If, upon reconsideration, the approval previously granted is revoked, the director shall provide the 
petitioner or the self-petitioner with a written notification of the decision that explains the specific 
reasons for revocation. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c). Because the Director did not properly revoke the 
approved petition, we will remand the matter for the following reasons. 
In the NOIR, the Director referenced "fraudulent documents," however, the Director did not 
specifically identify the documents. Moreover, although the NOIR mentioned the initial evidence 
requirements listed at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3), the Director did not discuss why the Petitioner did not 
fulfill at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Instead, the Director generally stated the Petitioner 
"did not establish that it has satisfied each adjudicative element to establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit." Here, the Director did not provide the Petitioner sufficient information that specifically 
explained the proposed grounds for revocation. 
In the revocation, the Director did not acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of documentation and 
did not explain why the evidence did not overcome the grounds in the NOIR. In addition, the Director 
did not address the Petitioner's arguments made in response to the NOTR. Moreover, while she 
indicated the fraudulent documents called into question the Petitioner's satisfaction of at least three of 
the ten regulatory criteria, the Director did not further elaborate and conduct an analysis of these 
criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director did not properly revoke the approved petition. The NOIR and notice of revocation lack 
adequate factual support for the Director's determination that the Petitioner submitted fraudulent 
documents to establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The NOTR 
did not provide the Petitioner with sufficient notice and explanation of any specific facts that raised 
concerns regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification. Additionally, the final 
revocation notice did not address the rebuttal claims and evidence the Petitioner provided. Further, 
Director's decision was lacking a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and explanation why the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate he satisfied these initial evidence requirements. We will therefore remand the matter to 
the Director to issue a new NOIR, covering these issues and also considering the additional arguments 
on appeal. Any future NOIR must include "a specific statement not only of the facts underlying the 
proposed action, but also of the supporting evidence." Estime, 19 T&N Dec. at 451. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5