remanded EB-1A Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 InRe : 33516671 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a lead marketing specialist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in business. 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 meets the initial evidentiary requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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 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 the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director mischaracterized some of her documentation and 
reasserts her eligibility for the classification. Upon review, we conclude that the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) and decision notice did not adequately address the claimed evidentiary criteria or 
analyze the evidence provided. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for a denial so that the affected party has a fair opportunity 
to contest the decision and we have an opportunity to conduct a meaningful appellate review. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i) (providing that the director's decision must explain the specific reasons for denial); 
cf Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a motion must 
be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Furthermore, an RFE must give the affected party notice of the proposed grounds of denial to give 
them adequate notice and sufficient information to respond. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8)(iv ); see generally 
1 USCIS Policy Manual E.6(F)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (stating that RFEs should 
identify why the provided evidence is insufficient). 
Both in the RFE and denial, the Director stated that various documents in the record did not establish 
eligibility without adequately discussing the contents of those documents or explaining why they were 
insufficient. For example, in the RFE, the Director dismissed evidence the Petitioner submitted for 
the lead or critical role criterion, in part, by categorically stating that someone classified as a self-­
employed, temporary or contractual worker cannot meet this criterion. However, the Director did not 
further explain or support his statement with legal authorities or guidance. Similarly in the denial, the 
Director repeatedly dismissed the Petitioner's evidence by stating: 
[T]he submitted evidence (e.g. iterating evidence, minimized digital photos) appears to 
be digital, self-made copies of documentary evidence that were reduced or altered, but 
such documentation is inadmissible. You did not submit ordinary legible photocopies 
of the original documentary evidence ... reflecting its original size. Thus, the evidence 
holds not probative value. 
While illegible evidence is not probative, there is no regulation banning the submission of photocopies 
that have had their size altered. Furthermore, upon review, the vast majority of the Petitioner's 
evidence is legible. It is therefore not apparent what documents the Director is referring to with this 
statement, which does not afford the Petitioner an adequate opportunity to respond. 
At times, the Director also mischaracterized and overlooked evidence. For example, when discussing 
the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the RFE and denial dismissed a letter from the 
Eastern European Marketing Association, stating that it only discussed committee membership rather 
than membership in an association. However, the letter in question did discuss the requirements of 
membership in the association. Furthermore, while the RFE and denial stated that the Petitioner did 
not provide evidence showing that either of the associations she is a member of requires outstanding 
achievements of its members as judged by experts in the field, she submitted letters, meeting minutes, 
and member biographies which address those issues. Additionally, the denial stated that associations 
which only require fees or a certain education or experience level for membership do not qualify for 
the membership criterion, but neither of the associations in the Petitioner's evidence meet this 
description. 
When addressing the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Director stated 
that the Petitioner did not provide materials establishing that any of the articles were published in 
professional or major trade publications, when, for example, the record includes information indicating 
that magazines such as PR in Russia and Adindex are professional publications in the public relations 
field. Furthermore, the Director cited Braga v. Poulos, 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 
2007), aff'd, 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2009), an unpublished federal district court case, 1 to dismiss 
circulation data in the record by asserting that USCIS was not obliged to accept publications' "self­
serving assertions." However, in Braga, the "self-serving" assertion in question was an unsupported 
claim to be "The #1 Magazine of Mixed Martial Arts!", not concrete information such as circulation 
1 Federal district court cases, as well as unpublished cases, are only binding on the parties before them. However, such 
cases may be cited as persuasive authority. See, e.g., Matter ofK-S-, 20 T&N Dec. 715, 718-19 (holding that federal district 
court decisions are not binding on the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative appellate authority); Wang v. 
Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 n.5 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent but may be 
persuasive on the legal issues). 
2 
data. In this and other instances, the Director categorically dismissed the Petitioner's evidence instead 
of discussing its contents. 
Because the Director's decision did not adequately address the record, we will remand this matter. On 
remand, the Director should specifically address the contents of the documents provided by the 
Petitioner and determine whether the evidence meets the criteria, and if does not, clearly explain why 
the evidence is insufficient. If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria 
after re-examining the evidence, the Director should include an analysis of the totality of the record 
evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained 
national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that the Petitioner is one of the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the Petitioner's achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010). 
The Director may also request any evidence considered relevant to the new decision. We express no 
opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3