remanded EB-1A Case: Immunology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 28, 2024 In Re: 30542380 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
she satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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). 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)(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). 
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 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
established receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claimed to have satisfied four of these criteria, but the Director determined the 
Petitioner fulfilled only two: judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the contributions of major 
significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Petitioner that she satisfies the contributions of major 
significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 1 The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the basis 
for denial of the petition through fulfillment of three regulatory criteria. Nevertheless, granting the third 
initial criterion does not suffice to establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. The Director must undertake a final merits determination to analyze the Petitioner's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if they establish that she has 
sustained national or international acclaim in the field and that she is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 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. 
1 The record includes documentation indicatincr that the Petitioner's work in Cell relating to 
________________________ has provoked widespread commentary 
on its importance from others in the immunology field and has been highly cited relative to others' work in her field. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature of her original contribution 
and its major significance to the field. Accordingly, we agree with the Petitioner's argument on appeal that she meets the 
requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). In addition, we note that the Director's decision erred under this 
criterion by requiring the Petitioner "to demonstrate a level of interest ... commensurate with substantial national or 
international acclaim." A determination regarding a petitioner's "national or international acclaim" is a relevant 
consideration in the final merits determination, but not a part of the initial assessment as to whether the evidence meets the 
requirements of a particular regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the stated reason for denial, we remand this proceeding so that 
the Director can render a final merits determination. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3