remanded EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 19917541 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 18, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an attorney, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(bXl)(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 the record did not 
establish that, as an attorney practicing law in the specialization of international litigation and 
arbitration, the Petitioner was eligible for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will vacate the Director's decision 
and remand the matter for a new decision consistent with the following analysis . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien'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). 
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 attorney specializing in international dispute resolution. He holds four master of 
laws degrees, and is licensed to practice law in China and the states of California and 
New York. He states that he has already opened a partnership in the United States to practice law in 
this area, and will continue to do so while also pursuing opportunities as a lecturer and scholar. 
Although the Petitioner claimed to meet six of the ten evidentiary criteria, the Director did not address 
the evidence presented under these criteria in either his notice of intent to deny (NOID) or decision. 
He instead focused on the listing of attorney as a profession under section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 
concluding that because members of the professions are specifically listed as eligible for classification 
under the second and third preference categories for employment-based immigrants but not under 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i), they are not eligible for classification as aliens of extraordinary ability unless 
their occupation falls within the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics. The Director found 
that the Petitioner's "occupation and field" did not "fall within the purview" of any of those areas of 
expertise. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially asserts that the Director ignored his statement, submitted for the first 
time in response to the NOID, that in addition to practicing law he planned to "continue to work as a 
lecturer and scholar in the U.S., focusing on teaching students and legal professionals in the field of 
international dispute resolution." While we agree that the Director did not evaluate this evidence in 
his decision, we note that although the Petitioner submitted evidenceofhavingauthoreda professional 
guide to arbitration and contributing to professional book chapters in China, he does not indicate, and 
the evidence does not show, that he has ever worked as a lecturer, professor, or professional trainer, 
or otherwise acted as an educator as he now proposes to do. Since the Petitioner has not claimed or 
1 While the Director did not include in his decision a citation to the 1995 opinion of the General Counsel of the legacy 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in this matter, we note thatthe decision essentially adopts the reasoning of 
that opinion. Gen Co Op. No. 95-3 (INS), 1995 WL 1796310. General Counsel opinions are advisory in nature and are 
thereforenotbinding.R.L.Jnv. Ltd. Partnersv. INS, 86 F.Supp. 2d 1014, 1022(0.Haw. 2000). Aff'd273 F.3d 874 (9th 
Cir. 2001). 
2 
submitted any evidence to support his extraordinary ability in the field of education, we need not 
considerwhether his plan to pursue emp loymentas an adjunct professor and participate in professional 
associations in the United States meets the requirement at section 203(b )(l)(ii) of the Act. 
However, upon de novo review we find that the record includes evidence which demonstrates that the 
Petitioner's practice of international dispute resolution and arbitration law places his area of expertise 
within the field of business. He indicates that he participated in the drafting of an arbitration guide for 
handling international disputes for Chinese attorneys, was appointed as an arbitrator by the China 
International Economic and Trade Arbitration Committee (CIETAC), and has authored articles on 
subjects including comparative arbitration systems and international investment published in 
professional legal journals. The evidence shows that these activities have a direct impact upon the 
strategies and operations of businesses participating in international trade, investment, and 
commerce. 2 Therefore, on remand the Director should evaluate the evidence in the record to determine 
whether it establishes that the Petitioner, as an attorney in the fie Id of business, meets three of the 
evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). If the Director determines that it does, he should 
then consider whether the totality of the evidence shows that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim the field of international dispute resolution, and that the Petitioner is one of the 
very small percentage at the top of this field. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for the entry of 
a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 For example, a statement from the ______________________ cites the 
growth of international investment as the impetus for the promulgation of the new arbitration rules that the Petitioner 
helped to draft. 
3