remanded EB-1A Case: Horse Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 1, 2023 In Re: 28821261 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a supplemental horse trainer, as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(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 the Petitioner did not 
establish the Beneficiary 's receipt or a major, internationally recognized award or satisfaction of at 
least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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. 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) also allows 
a petitioner to submit comparable material if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual'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 
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). 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In addition, although the Petitioner 
claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility for four categories of evidence, the Director concluded the 
Petitioner only demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for one criterion, leading or critical role 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), in which she must meet at least three. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner 
argues that the Director did not consider its request to consider comparable evidence under the claimed 
criteria. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(4) provides that "[i]f the above standards do not apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility." USCIS determines if the evidence submitted is comparable to the evidence required in 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 This regulatory provision provides petitioners the opportunity to submit 
comparable evidence to establish the person's eligibility, if it is determined that the evidentiary criteria 
described in the regulations do not readily apply to the person's occupation. When evaluating such 
comparable evidence, officers must consider whether the regulatory criteria are readily applicable to 
the person's occupation and, if not, whether the evidence provided is truly comparable to the criteria 
listed in that regulation. A general unsupported assertion that the listed evidentiary criterion does not 
readily apply to the petitioner's occupation is not probative. Similarly, general claims that USCIS 
should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive. However, a statement from 
the petitioner can be sufficient to establish whether a criterion is readily applicable if that statement is 
detailed, specific, and credible. 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. 3 
1 The Petitioner also claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility for awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), memberships under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 Id. 
2 
We agree with the Petitioner. At both initial filing and in response to the Director's request for 
evidence, the Petitioner made arguments for the Beneficiary's eligibility under the claimed criteria 
based on comparable evidence. However, the Director's decision does not reflect the Director 
considered the Petitioner's comparable evidence arguments or explained why comparable evidence 
claims could not be evaluated. 4 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the Director to determine whether the Petitioner first 
established that any of the claimed criteria do not readily apply to the Beneficiary's occupation. If so, 
then the Director must determine whether the evidence is truly comparable to the claim criteria. 
Furthermore, if the Director concludes that the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the categories, then 
the Director must evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of a final merits determination. 
See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 There is no comparable evidence for the one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
3