remanded EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20687003 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 3, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an attorney and managing partner at a Brazilian law firm, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability in business . 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 and dismissed a subsequent motion to 
reconsider, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three 
of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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. 
1 The Director also dismissed the subsequent motion because it was not accompanied by a statement about whether or not 
the unfavorable decision has been the subject of any judicial proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )(iii)(C) . The required 
statement on judicial proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C) is a procedural rule that helps U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services identify those cases involving judicial proceedings so they can be held in abeyance pending the 
outcome of litigation involving the originally filed petition. See, e.g. Memorandum from Richard E. Norton , Assoc. 
Comm'r for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Adjudication of Petitions and Applications which are 
in Litigation or Pending Appeal (Feb. 8, 1989). The brief accompanying the Petitioner 's appeal addresses the Director's 
ground for dismissal by confirming that his petition is not and has not been the subject of any judicial proceeding . 
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. 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 asserts that he qualifies as "an individual of extraordinary ability in the highly 
specialized field of transnational corporate law, particularly for his expertise in complex transactions 
involving commercial tax and labor laws and regulations." 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 met 
seven of these criteria, relating to awards for excellence, published material about him, participation 
as a judge of the work of others, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly 
articles, leading or critical role, and significantly high remuneration. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the criteria relating to authorship of 
scholarly articles and leading or critical role. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets 
the awards for excellence, published material about him, participation as a judge of the work of others, 
original contributions of major significance, and significantly high remuneration criteria, and that the 
Director therefore should have proceeded to a final merits determination. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), relating to participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specialization. The Petitioner asserts that he satisfies this criterion because he has served 
as a member of multiple Ph.D. dissertation committees that made the final judgment as to whether an 
individual candidate's body of work satisfied the requirements for a doctoral degree in Law. For example, 
the record indicates that the Petitioner served on a panel that evaluated Ph.D. candidates' thesis topics 
such as 'The Import Tax Incidence Matrix Rule," "Participative Tax Law: Administrative Transaction 
and Arbitration of Tax Obligation," and "Typicity, Antijuridicity and Culpability in Tax Violations." We 
2 
agree with the Petitioner that the work he judged in these instances falls within an allied field of 
specialization for which classification is sought. 
In satisfying this third criterion, the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial of the 
petition. Granting the third initial criterion, however, does not suffice to establish eligibility for the 
classification the Petitioner seeks. 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 his 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. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we remand this proceeding so 
that the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping 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. 
2 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). 
3