remanded EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23173109 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 24, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer, seeks classification as a noncitizen of "extraordinary ability." This first­
preference, employment-based category contains immigrant visas for noncitizens who demonstrate 
extraordinary ability "in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics." Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the self-petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that practicing law falls under one of the statutory fields. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that her legal expertise relates to "business." 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence . Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will 
withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with 
the following analysis. 
I. NONCITIZENS OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY 
Self-petitioners in this visa category must demonstrate their extraordinary ability by "sustained national 
or international acclaim" and "extensive documentation" of recognized achievements in their relevant 
fields of endeavor. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Petitioners must also seek to enter the country 
to work in their fields, and their entries must "substantially benefit prospectively the United States ." 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(ii), (iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those noncitizens in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). Petitioners can demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements through receipts of major , internationally recognized 
awards. 8 C.F.R . 204.5(h)(3). Otherwise, they must meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. See 
8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Petitioners may submit comparable evidence if they demonstrate that 
the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) do not readily apply to their occupations. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) . 
If petitioners meet these preliminary requirements, we then consider the totality of their materials in a 
final merits determination, assessing whether the records show sustained national or international 
acclaim and identify the petitioners as among the small percentage at the very top of their fields. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part analysis to 
determine extraordinary ability). 
II. THE REQUIRED FIELDS 
On the Form I-140, the Petitioner identified her proposed job title as "International Legal Counsel." 
She stated that she would provide legal opinions to the international operations department of an online 
I company. 
The Director found that "[t]he petitioner has not established that the practice oflaw falls within the 
purview of 'the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics."' See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act. The Director noted that, for immigration purposes, the term "profession" includes "lawyers," 
see section 101(a)(32) of the Act, and that Congress expressly created immigrant visas for 
"professionals" in other categories. See sections 203(b )(2)(A), (3)(A)(ii) of the Act. If Congress 
includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another of the same Act, 
adjudicators presume that Congress intentionally excluded the language from the other section. INS 
v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,433 (1987) (citation omitted). As section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of Act 
does not expressly include professionals, the Director found that Congress did not intend them to 
qualify as noncitizens of extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner's occupation as a lawyer, however, does not automatically bar her classification as a 
noncitizen of extraordinary ability. Lawyers qualify for the requested category if their proposed work 
involves one of the designated statutory fields. Immigration and Naturalization Serv. Gen. Counsel 
Op. No. 95-3, 1995 WL 1796310 (Jan. 20, 1995). 
The record indicates the Petitioner's proposed employment in a business-related role. In a letter 
supporting the petition, she states the filing's basis as "her extraordinary business and academic 
achievements in intellectual property protection, especially in the field of e-commerce." Also, the 
authors of most of the supporting letters in the petition are managers of online I businesses, and 
published articles about the Petitioner focus on her work for online businesses. Thus, consistent with 
section 203(b )( 1 )(A )(i) of the Act, a preponderance of evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's proposed 
employment in the field of business. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary decision. 
The Director did not determine whether the Petitioner satisfied the preliminary, regulatory criteria for 
the requested immigrant visa category. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We will therefore remand 
the matter. If the Director finds the Petitioner eligible under the regulatory requirements, the Director 
should consider whether the evidence demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and 
places the Petitioner among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. 
2 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3