remanded EB-1A Case: Legal Science And Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 17, 2024 In Re: 30586318 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner 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 in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics 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 Petitioner is 
ineligible for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in "the sciences, arts, education, 
business or athletics," because she intends to work as a "chieflegal officer in the field oflegal science 
and law." The Director emphasized that "the practice of law is a profession" as defined in the Act and 
concluded that Congress specifically excluded members of the professions from section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 l&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 nonc1tizens who: have 
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; seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and will substantially benefit the United States upon their entry. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); 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). 
As a preliminary matter, we are unable to fully address the merits of this case because the record is 
incomplete. The cover letter submitted with the initial petition indicated that the Petitioner was 
submitting a total of nine exhibits labeled A through I, with exhibits B through H intended to establish 
her eligibility under the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (viii) and 
(ix), and her intent to continue work in her area of extraordinary ability in the United States. The 
Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) prior to denying the petition and, in that NOID, did 
not indicate that this required initial evidence had not been submitted. However, the only exhibits 
incorporated into the record of proceeding before us on appeal are exhibit A, which contains the 
Petitioner's statement in support of the petition and her curriculum vitae, and exhibit B, which contains 
evidence related to an award she received from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. For 
this reason, we cannot determine whether the Director properly considered all initial evidence in 
adjudicating the petition, nor can we base our own decision in this case on an incomplete record. 
The Director bears the responsibility of ensuring that the record is complete and contains all evidence 
that has been submitted by a petitioner or considered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services 
(USCIS) in reaching its decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); cf Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 68, 
59 (BIA 1976). Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for the 
inclusion of the missing record materials and further consideration. 
Turning to the sole grounds for denial, the Director noted that, for immigration purposes, the term 
"profession" as defined at section 101(a)(32) of the Act includes "lawyers," and that Congress 
expressly created immigrant visas for "professionals" in other categories. See sections 203(b )(2)(A), 
(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Director emphasized that 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. As section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of Act does not 
expressly include professionals, the Director concluded that Congress did not intend them to qualify 
as noncitizens of extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner's background as a lawyer, however, does not automatically bar her classification as a 
noncitizen of extraordinary ability. Lawyers may qualify for the requested immigrant visa category if 
their proposed work involves one of the designated statutory fields. See Immigration and 
Naturalization Serv. Gen. Counsel Op. No. 95-3, 1995 WL 1796310 (Jan. 20, 1995) (stating an 
2 
individual "who is of extraordinary ability in business or in some other EB-1 endeavor would not be 
ineligible for [this] classification simply because the [ noncitizen] is also a lawyer"). 1 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director's decision did not include 
sufficient analysis of whether her area of expertise and intended work in the United States fall within 
the purview of "business" as set forth in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Instead, the Director's 
decision reflects that they focused primarily on the Beneficiary's education credentials in the field of 
law and her tentative plans to accept a position with the title "chieflegal officer" in the United States, 
rather than on the evidence in the aggregate. 
Although the record before us is incomplete, the available evidence relating to the Petitioner's area of 
expertise and intended employment in the United States suggests that her area of expertise falls within 
the purview of "business" as set forth in section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner does not 
claim to be licensed to practice law in any U.S. jurisdiction and indicates that she has no intent to 
become a practicing attorney in the United States. The record reflects that, most recently, she has 
served as the chief legal officer for an aviation industry company where she provides legal support to 
the company's board and shareholders and supervises the operation of a legal department, but also 
implements digital technologies into the legal department, develops digitization strategies and 
company policies, and leads customer negotiations. She emphasizes on appeal that the Director 
mischaracterized the nature of her former and intended work. The Petitioner maintains that she 
consistently indicated that she intends to work as a business executive, and notes that her legal 
expertise, business expertise, and technology-related research do not fall within mutually exclusive 
fields. As the matter will be remanded, the Director should reevaluate the Petitioner's claim that her 
field of endeavor is business, taking into consideration the foregoing discussion and the arguments she 
sets forth in her appeal. 
The Director did not determine whether the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria for the requested immigrant visa category. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On 
remand, if the Director determines, after inclusion of the missing record materials, that the Petitioner 
meets these initial evidence requirements, they should then consider the totality of the evidence 
provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or 
international acclaim and demonstrates that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very 
top of her field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 We note that General Counsel opinions are advisory in nature and are not binding. R.L Inv. Ltd. Partners v. INS, 86 F. 
Supp. 2d 1014. 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), aff'd. 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001). 
3