remanded EB-1A Case: Marketing And Advertising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7163508 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an entrepreneur and marketing specialist , seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner established 
that he met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must 
satisfy at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to conduct a thorough review of the evidence . 
He maintains that he meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria and is otherwise qualified 
for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter to the Director for entry of a new decision . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur and marketing specialist who has worked in marketing and 
advertising in Brazil, co-founded a job search platform, established a non-profit organization, and 
written books and articles on various subjects. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established 
that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets five of the ten criteria, relating to lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized awards, published material in major media, original contributions of major 
significance, leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation, and high 
salary or other remuneration. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), (viii) and (ix). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the five claimed criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director either overlooked or erred in his assessment of evidence submitted 
with respect to the criteria. 
Upon review, we agree that the Director's decision lacks a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted 
in support of the petition with respect to three of the five claimed criteria and does not acknowledge 
certain evidence and arguments the Petitioner submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE). 
An officer must folly explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a 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 of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
As we do not find that the record as presently constituted establishes the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
benefit sought, we cannot sustain the appeal; however, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for farther review and entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
2 
First, with respect to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Director stated 
in his request for evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner "provided several articles in which the [Petitioner] 
is mentioned or quoted as well as articles promoting [his] business." The Director advised the 
Petitioner in the RFE that the submitted articles were not about him and his work in the field and could 
not satisfy this criterion. In the denial decision, the Director implied that the Petitioner did not address 
the criterion in the RFE response and concluded that the criterion had not been met. 
However, the Petitioner did in fact address this criterion in the RFE response, noting that two of the 
three submitted articles interview him and discuss his educational and professional experience and 
career highlights, and therefore are about him and relating to his work in the field. The Petitioner 
raised valid oints and we a ree that the articles titled 
.__ ___ _.' and .__ ______________ _.are about the Petitioner and his work as an 
entrepreneur. Because the Director dismissed these published articles as promotional materials, he 
did not reach a determination as to whether they were published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Accordingly, we will 
remand this matter for the Director to re-examine the evidence submitted under this criterion, and to 
evaluate whether the articles mentioned above, which were published by several online media sources, 
satisfy all elements of this criterion. 
As noted, the Petitioner also claimed to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires 
him to establish that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. In his cover 
letter accompanying the petition, the Petitioner included a 30-page discussion of the evidence he was 
submitting under this criterion, which was attached as exhibits 36 through 97. These exhibits included 
evidence of his advertising campaigns, evidence related to the companies and non-profit organizations 
that he founded, a public installation that he co-created atl I in Brazil, a prize program 
for young professionals in marketing that he established, books that he authored and published, and 
eight testimonial letters discussing his work. 
In addressing this criterion in the RFE, the Director stated: "You have provided evidence of several 
successful advertising campaigns," but did not acknowledge any of the other evidence provided with 
the initial submission. In response, counsel for the Petitioner expressed concern as to whether the 
Director had sufficiently reviewed the initial evidence, emphasized the relevance of some of that 
evidence, and highlighted passages from both previously submitted and newly submitted expert 
opinion letters. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, the Director acknowledged that the 
Petitioner submitted testimonial evidence in addition to "evidence of several successful advertising 
campaigns." However, in addressing the testimonial evidence, the Director did not refer to any 
specific letters, and instead generally referenced "letters from customers" and letters "from college 
professors," two categories that do not encompass the dozen or more letters provided. The Director 
also mentioned a need for corroborating evidence to support statements made in testimonials, but once 
again did not acknowledge the other documentary evidence included with the initial submission. 
Given the amount and type of evidence submitted in support of this criterion, we find the Director's 
brief analysis does not adequately inform the Petitioner of his reasons for determining that the evidence 
submitted, considered individually and collectively, does not meet the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. 
3 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). As this matter will be remanded, the Director should re-examine the evidence 
submitted to satisfy the original contributions criterion and make a new determination that takes into 
account this discussion. 
Finally, with respect to the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Director emphasized 
that the Petitioner did not submit additional evidence relating to the criterion in response to the RFE. 
However, the record reflects that the Petitioner did in fact address this criterion in the RFE response, 
by clarifying the previously submitted evidence, and by submitting additional evidence. As the 
Director did not take the RFE response into account, he should make a new determination that 
considers all evidence in the record. 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the criteria 
relating to lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
and leading or critical roles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Director's analysis of these two 
criteria considers the initial evidence and the Petitioner's response to the RFE and provided the 
Petitioner with a sufficient explanation of the Director's reasons for determining that the criteria had 
not been met. 
If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria after re-examining the 
evidence related to the published materials, original contributions, and high salary criteria discussed 
above, his decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
whether the record demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that his 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 decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4