remanded EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 14, 2023 In Re: 28946956 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a public prosecutor and specialist in institutional policy and technology innovation, 
seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, he did not 
establish, as required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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)(1 )(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 their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 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 m certain media, and 
commercial successes). 
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 Petitioner is a lawyer who completed his graduate legal education at I ~ where he 
earned his master of laws (LLM) and doctor of juridical science (SJD) degrees. The 
public I 
record reflects 
that he has spent 
I, 
most of his professional career as a prosecutor within the II where he has led several innovation initiatives. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he was required to satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to 
judging the work of others, authorship of scholarly articles in the field, and performed in a leading or 
critical role for an establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
As the Petitioner demonstrated that he met the initial evidence requirements, the Director proceeded 
to a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze all of a 
petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are 
sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In 
this matter, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this very high 
standard. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in 
the record which establishes that he meets additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and 
otherwise qualifies under the high standards of this immigrant visa classification. He farther contends 
the Director did not adhere to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, did not 
adequately explain why the submitted evidence was deemed insufficient to meet the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (v), and did not consider the totality of the evidence in the record when 
conducting the final merits analysis. We agree with the Petitioner's assertions. The Director's final 
merits analysis did not consider the record in its entirety and is lacking a detailed discussion of the 
evidence provided in support of the petition. Further, as emphasized by the Petitioner on appeal, it is 
unclear whether or to what extent the Director considered the Petitioner's detailed response to a request 
for evidence, as that evidence is not referenced in the decision. 
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to six of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the final merits discussion only briefly addresses evidence related to three of the 
criteria, rather than considering the evidence in its totality. Specifically, the Director's decision did 
2 
not meaningfully address the evidence relating to the Petitioner's awards, published materials about 
him, and contributions to his field and whether that evidence, individually or collectively, shows 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that he is among the small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. All evidence must be considered in a final merits determination 
as some evidence is more persuasive when viewed together with other evidence. 
Because the Director did not properly consider all the Petitioner's evidence in the final merits analysis, 
the decision did not sufficiently address why he did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested 
classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual 
( stating that in the final merits determination, USCIS officers should evaluate all the evidence together 
when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if a petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
When denying a petition, the Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). This explanation should be sufficient to allow the 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 a decision must fully explain the reasons for 
denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on 
appeal). Here, because the decision was based on an incomplete review of the record, the Petitioner 
was not provided with a sufficient explanation of the reasons for denial as a basis for his appeal. 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
review and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the Petitioner's appeal, 
which includes claims that the Director overlooked evidence that established his eligibility under the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii) and (v), and additional evidence relating to these criteria. 
Further, as the Director has already determined that the Petitioner met at least three criteria, they should 
evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained 
national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that he is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the 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. The new decision should include a final 
merits analysis of the totality of the record, including the evidence submitted in support of all claimed 
initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and any other potentially relevant evidence. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3