remanded EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 4, 2024 In Re: 33311070 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a journalist who seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did she demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 
To qualify under this immigrant 
classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i)-(iii) 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, 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 move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received 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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed she met six of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to published material and 
judging but that she had not satisfied the criteria associated with prizes or awards, original 
contributions, display of the Petitioner's work, or her performance in a leading or critical role. On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets each of the evidentiary criteria the Director declined to 
grant. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director's analysis on the 
criteria they granted, but other regulatory requirements require further review. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner initially claimed two awards. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) relating 
to both awards and the Petitioner responded with additional evidence addressing the I I 
International Award. The Director's decision did not address the additional claims or evidence but 
indicated that she offered no new evidence in response to the RFE and determined the Petitioner did 
not satisfy this criterion's requirements. 
On remand, the Director should evaluate all evidence related to the Beneficiary's awards to determine 
whether she had received an award that meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) at the time 
she filed the petition in November 2022. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 
The Petitioner provided several articles and the Director determined that the Petitioner met the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work 
of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner provided two instances of judging the work of others and the Director decided she met 
the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the.field. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner provided evidence she launched the digital version of a lifestyle and women's magazine 
that has reached beyond the borders of her home country. The Director discussed this initiative in the 
RFE and the Petitioner responded with additional claims explaining how this effort satisfies this 
criterion's requirements. The Director's decision did not address the additional claims and only 
indicated that she offered no new evidence in response to the RFE and determined the Petitioner's 
evidence was not adequate. 
On remand, the Director should evaluate all claims and evidence under this requirement to determine 
whether those contributions rise to the level of major significance in her field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner claimed her work was on display for public audiences at live journalism events and on 
podcasts. The Director correctly determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion as she did "not demonstrate that any of her work product was on display at artistic exhibitions 
or [artistic] showcases." An October 2, 2024 users Policy Manual update clarified that "[w]hile the 
dictionary definition includes public showings other than those that are artistic in nature, the plain 
language of the criterion includes the modifier 'artistic' and explicitly requires that the exhibitions or 
showcases be artistic in nature. users only considers non-artistic exhibitions or showcases as part of 
a properly supported claim of comparable evidence .... " See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual 
F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. It appears the Director properly applied agency 
policy and the Petitioner did not advance a comparable evidence claim here. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner's claims under this criterion relate to her service as editorial manager for a lifestyle and 
women's magazine. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. The Director noted the evidence in the record did not describe the Petitioner's duties for the 
publication to show her role was leading for the organization, and further decided a lack of material 
showing how the Petitioner's performance in her role was critical to the publication's success. 
Although the Director concluded that El Nacional (the newspaper within which the publication was 
3 
launched) is an organization with a distinguished reputation, they indicated the lifestyle and women's 
magazine did not enjoy such a reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the lifestyle and women's magazine is distinguished by "virtue 
of its publishing its contents under the umbrella of the nationally recognized publication El Nacional" 
which the Director conceded enjoyed a distinguished reputation. We do not agree that the subordinate 
magazine may impute its reputation from the parent newspaper, and instead the Petitioner must show 
the magazine itself enjoys that distinguished status on its own right. Otherwise, it would be necessary 
for the Petitioner to prove that she performed in a leading or critical role for El Nacional. 
That is not to say that we conclude the record lacks any evidence relating to the lifestyle and women's 
magazine's own reputation that it appears the Director may not have considered. The RFE response 
noted evidence reflecting it was Venezuela's first ever publication that was licensed for use in at least 
10 other countries, as well as other material described in the RFE response that directly related to the 
lifestyle and women's magazine's reputation. The Petitioner's RFE response also contained additional 
claims and evidence regarding her leading or critical role for the magazine, but it is not apparent from 
the decision that the Director fully considered that content. 
On remand, the Director should evaluate all evidence related to the Beneficiary's claims under this 
criterion to determine whether the Petitioner has fulfilled her requirements. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As we discuss above, the denial decision did not include all of the required types of analysis and we 
will remand the matter for a new decision. On remand, if the Director deems it necessary, they may 
issue a new RFE prior to issuing a final decision. Should the Director conclude that the Petitioner 
meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, the new decision should include a final merits analysis 
of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or 
international acclaim and received recognition for achievements in her field, identifying her as one of 
that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field, and that her achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. Within any final merits determination, the 
Director should also consider any potentially relevant evidence in the record, even if it does not fit one 
of the initial evidentiary criteria or was not presented as comparable evidence. Id. at F.2(B)(2). The 
petition's approval or denial depends on the evidence's type and quality. Id. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4