remanded EB-1A Case: Management Information Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 06, 2024 In Re: 29096057 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor of management information systems, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 fust 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). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a tenure-track assistant professor and researcher in the field of management 
information systems. She intends to continue teaching in the United States and researching the impact 
of online platforms' technology policies on businesses and society. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the criteria she claimed to have satisfied: 
participation as a judge of the work of others in her field and authorship of scholarly articles in her 
field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The record supports this determination. The Director 
concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish that she met the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) or (v). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets these criteria, and 
she contends that the Director disregarded certain evidence and erroneously applied relevant law and 
USCIS policies in concluding otherwise. Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has also met 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner has submitted transcripts and articles showing that she has been interviewed and her 
work has been discussed in major technology publications, such as W- and G-, as well as in major 
media, including National Public Radio (NPR). We note that, in denying the petition, the Director 
stated that published material must not simply be about the results of the Petitioner ' s research, but 
about the petitioner herself, stating that her accomplishments in the wider field should be the focal 
point of that material. In contrast, the USCIS policy manual advises that to meet the plain language 
of this criterion "published material should be about the person, relating to the person 's work in the 
field, not just about the person's employer and the employer's work or another organization and that 
organization's work." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(1), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. We conclude the Director imposed a novel substantive 
requirement in his analysis of whether the Petitioner met this criterion by providing a definition of 
"about" that is not found in the plain language of the regulation or in policy. USCIS may not utilize 
novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221. The Director should avoid imposing novel requirements when reviewing 
the Petitioner's evidence on remand. 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has established her qualifications under criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
(iv), and (vi), we will withdraw the Director's denial of the petition and remand the matter for further 
review and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of 
the evidence of record. The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence 
evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained 
national or international acclaim, her status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field 
of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 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. 
3