remanded EB-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2024 In Re: 31936541 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, as the co-founder and head of 
engineering of an information technology development firm. 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 Petitioner 
satisfied at least three of the required initial evidentiary criteria, he did not demonstrate that he enjoys 
sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. Specifically, the 
decision lacks analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record with respect to the Petitioner's 
eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics as demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 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 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur engaged as the co-founder and head of engineering for a firm that 
specializes in the strategic management and development of cloud networks, distributed computing 
strategies, data analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) business intelligence technologies (the 
Petitioner's technological areas of interest). He intends to continue working for his current employer 
or elsewhere in a similar capacity should this petition be approved. 
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 filed this petition on September 11, 2023, and must established his eligibility for 
this highly restrictive visa classification as of that date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner claims 
throughout this proceeding that he satisfies six of these criteria: 
• (iii), published material about the individual in professional or major media (published 
material) 
• (iv), participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought (judging) 
• (v), original contributions of major significance in the field (original major 
contributions) 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media (scholarly articles) 
• (viii), Performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a 
distinguished reputation (leading or critical role) 
• (ix), Commanded a high salary or other significant high remuneration for services, in 
relation to others in the field (high salary) 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner met the plain language 
requirements of four of these criteria, (judging, scholarly articles, leading or critical role, and high 
salary), he did not meet the other two criteria (published material, original major contributions). The 
2 
Director also concluded the record did not show the Petitioner warranted favorable consideration in a 
final merits determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts among other things, that the Director failed to evaluate all the relevant 
evidence in determining that he did not warrant favorable consideration in the final merits 
determination. He alleges that the Director ignored "key details" offered in the submitted evidence. 
A decision denying a benefit must include the specific reasons for denial and sufficiently explain the 
underlying deficiencies to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us 
an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 
1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). For the following reasons, we 
agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision is deficient. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner explained that he was "a 
leading technologist/engineer and entrepreneur [who] has made original impactfol contributions to 
[the Petitioner's technological areas of interest]," noting: 
• [He] has been the co-founder & head of engineering at [N-], a company that has 
attracted over $17.5 million in fonding while also revolutionizing the product 
analytics field with its proprietary AI-enhanced business intelligence 
platform/product that [the Petitioner] strategically managed the development of. 
• Before co-founding [N-], [he] was already highly regarded for his contributions as the 
founding engineer at the high-tech company [T-] where he helped build this 
company's technological platform and is listed as an inventor on multiple patents. 
• Prior to working for [T-], [he] worked as a software engineer for [G-] on [its] front 
end (GFE) team where he contributed to the initial implementation of [G-'s] QUIC 
protocol, technologies that laid the groundwork for http3. 
The Petitioner provided detailed exhibit listings that referenced the evidence submitted to substantiate 
the significance of his managerial accomplishments and technical innovations, initially, in response to 
the RFE, ( and in the appeal brief). 
The Director concluded, among other things, in the denial: 
The Petitioner provided letters praising the work he has done for two employers. These 
letters came from co-workers or clients of these companies. The Petitioner did not 
provide any evidence suggesting that he is well known outside his existing corporate 
relationships. He did not provide any evidence suggesting that he is well-known in his 
field as a result of the work he had done with these employers. 
The Petitioner has provided evidence showing a working engineer who has been lucky 
enough to be associated with two startups that have garnered venture capital fonding. 
The fundamental nature of this highly restrictive visa classification demands 
comparison between the petitioner and others in the field. The regulatory criteria 
3 
describe types of evidence that one may submit, but it does not follow that every 
engineer who has secured a patent or who has earned the respect of his colleagues is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
When users provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it 
will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it 
to address every piece of evidence the Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 
(1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. 
Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 
1993). Here, the conclusory statements offered by the Director as reasons for denying the final merits 
aspect of the petition, such as the passages from the denial quoted above, do not provide a sufficient 
reasoned consideration to the petition, or make adequate findings, based on the evidence submitted. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). 
Although the Director briefly mentioned and discussed some of the types of evidence submitted by 
the Petitioner in their final merits determination, and concluded that they were insufficient, the 
decision does not adequately explain why the Petitioner's evidence was deficient to support his claim 
that he is an individual of extraordinary ability. 
We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new 
decision. Because the Director determined the Petitioner has established his qualifications under at 
least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), on remand, the Director should conduct a final merits 
review of the evidence of record. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for the handful of individuals at the top of their respective fields. users has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter of Price, 20 r&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). As contemplated by 
Congress, the Petitioner must demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim, 
consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); 
see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence evaluating whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international 
acclaim, his status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his 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. We 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4