remanded EB-1A Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 30, 2024 In Re: 33359506 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a marketing analyst, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). The Director also entered a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against 
the Petitioner. The Director denied a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, determining that 
the Petitioner did not meet the filing requirements to either reopen or reconsider the decision. 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 of Christo '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 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 )( 1 )(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 a beneficiary's 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 a beneficiary meets 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 
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 ). A finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact requires the following 
elements: the individual procured or sought to procure a benefit under U.S. immigration laws; the 
individual made a false representation; the false representation was willfully made and material to the 
benefit sought; and the false representation was made to a U.S. government official. See generally 8 
USCIS Policy Manual J.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual; see also Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 
15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 197 5). A finding of willful misrepresentation in a visa petition may 
be considered in any future proceeding to determine that a noncitizen is inadmissible to the United 
States. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder and general manager of a marketing consultancy company in China, 
where he claims to have developed the theory of "value chain marketing" and to have published two 
books in the field of marketing. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met one of the criteria he claimed 
to have satisfied: performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments having 
a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, the Director concluded the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence sufficient to establish that he met the following criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3): (iii), published material about the Petitioner; (iv), judging the work of others 
in the Petitioner's field; (v), original contributions of major significance to the field; or (vi), authorship 
of scholarly articles in the field. The Director further concluded, without explanation, that the 
Petitioner had willfully misrepresented himself to procure a U.S. immigration benefit. 
In a motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner stated that he met the claimed criteria, asserting 
the Director did not consider all of the submitted evidence and that novel requirements were imposed 
in the Director's decision. The Petitioner also submitted new evidence in support of his eligibility and 
pointed to the fact that he was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the Director's conclusion that he 
had misrepresented himself. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the Director did not identify what 
factors led to the finding of misrepresentation, adding that the Director also did not provide analysis 
of his arguments on motion. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director's decision dismissing the 
motion to reopen and reconsider lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted and did not fully 
explain the reasons for the unfavorable conclusions. The Director's decision does not fully analyze 
2 
the evidence submitted on motion, nor does it address the Petitioner's assertions regarding the 
misrepresentation finding. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in 
order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity 
for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Accordingly, we 
find that the Petitioner was not adequately informed of the Director's reasons for determining that none 
of the material submitted in support of the four criteria satisfy the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), (v), or (vi). We also agree with the Petitioner's assertion that he was not properly 
afforded an opportunity to rebut the Director's conclusion that he had misrepresented himself. See 8 
C.F.R. §103.2(b)(16)(i). 
We note that the Director's decision denying the petition similarly lacked a detailed analysis of the 
evidence submitted and did not fully explain the reasons for the unfavorable conclusions. We also 
note that, in denying the petition, the Director made general references to fraud and misrepresentation 
but did not discuss or identify any specific evidence or provide any explanation regarding the 
determination that the Petitioner misrepresented himself or was otherwise engaged in fraud. 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the Director for further consideration and issuance of a new 
decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3