remanded EB-1A Case: Information Science And Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 20142511 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 27, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher, seeks classification 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for the requested classification . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable evidence if they are able to demonstrate that 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. 20 l 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). 
IT. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in I information science and engineering from the University of 
in August 2018. At the time of filing, the Petitioner held the position of principal research engineer and 
chief executive officer atl I 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied three of these criteria, relating to participation as a judge 
of the work of others; original contributions of major significance; and authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to judging and authorship of 
scholarly articles, and we agree. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has also 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), relating to original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. While we do not find all the 
Petitioner's assertions to be persuasive, we do agree that the submitted evidence, including reference 
letters which clearly explain how his contributions are of major significance and their impact on both the 
field and the authors' own work, are sufficient to meet the plain language of the criterion. 
The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition. However, 
granting the third initial criterion does not, by itself, establish eligibility for the requested classification. 
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 extraordinary ability in the 
Petitioner's field of endeavor. 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. 1 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (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 for the immigrant classification). 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we are withdrawing the 
Director's decision and remanding the matter so that the Director may conduct a final merits 
determination consistent with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3