remanded EB-1A Case: Social Media Artist

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 19, 2024 In Re: 34868162 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a social media artist, 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 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 met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria at 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1 )(A) 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 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, the 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) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) also allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the 
individual's occupation. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that she is a "powerhouse Hispanic Social Media Artist" and influencer 
"paving the way for other LGBTQ Artists." The record shows she is one half of the duo I I 
I lwhich has appeared on Cosmopolitan Latin American and the MTV MIAW Awards. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must show that she satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed she could satisfy the following criteria: 
• (i), Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual and their work; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one of the evidentiary 
criteria, published material about the individual and their work at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
After reviewing the record in its totality, we conclude that the Director's determinations with respect 
to the remaining referenced criteria were conclusory and did not specifically address all the Petitioner's 
claims or evidence. An officer must fully 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 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 
2 
respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Because the 
Director's decision does not provide a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial, 
we will withdraw that decision and remand for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent 
with our discussion below. That decision should include an analysis of the specific evidence submitted 
in support of each criterion claimed by the Petitioner. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 e.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
which requires submission of evidence demonstrating the petitioner's prizes or awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. We agree with the Petitioner's 
assertion that it is difficult to discern, based on the Director's decision, what specific awards were 
considered in reaching this determination; the decision only vaguely references "copies and photos of 
various awards" in the analysis of this criterion, without specifically identifying any documents. The 
Director did not otherwise address the Petitioner's claims or evidence related to this criterion. Instead, 
the Director made conclusory determinations, including that "there is no objective evidence to 
ascertain whether the awards or prizes are nationally recognized or internationally recognized, for 
excellence in the field of endeavor, and in beneficiary's field," and "the beneficiary's prizes or awards 
appear to be local or regional in nature," without addressing why the documentation submitted in 
support of this criterion was not sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. On remand, the Director 
should review the record, including the appeal, and issue a new determination with respect to this 
criterion based on the totality of the evidence the Petitioner submitted. 
With respect to the scholarly articles criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), on appeal, the Petitioner 
argues that the Director did not consider its request, in the alternative, to consider comparable evidence 
under this claimed criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(4) provides that "[i]f the above 
standards do not apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence 
to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." users determines if the evidence submitted is comparable 
to the evidence required in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 1 This regulatory provision provides petitioners the 
opportunity to submit comparable evidence to establish the person's eligibility, if it is determined that 
the evidentiary criteria described in the regulations do not readily apply to the person's occupation. 
When evaluating such comparable evidence, officers must consider whether the regulatory criteria are 
readily applicable to the person's occupation and, if not, whether the evidence provided is trnly 
comparable to the criteria listed in that regulation. 
A general unsupported assertion that the listed evidentiary criterion does not readily apply to the 
petitioner's occupation is not probative. Similarly, general claims that users should accept witness 
letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive. However, a statement from the petitioner can be 
sufficient to establish whether a criterion is readily applicable if that statement is detailed, specific, 
and credible. Although officers do not consider comparable evidence where a particular criterion is 
readily applicable to the person's occupation, a criterion need not be entirely inapplicable to the 
person's occupation. Rather, the officer considers comparable evidence if the petitioner shows that a 
criterion is not easily applicable to the person's job or profession.2 We agree with the Petitioner. 
Within its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner made arguments for 
her eligibility under the scholarly articles criterion based on comparable evidence. However, the 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 Id. 
3 
Director's decision does not reflect the Director considered the Petitioner's comparable evidence 
arguments. Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the Director to determine whether the Petitioner 
first established that the scholarly articles criterion does not readily apply to her occupation. If so, 
then the Director must determine whether the evidence is truly comparable to this criterion. 
Regarding the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), on appeal, the Petitioner states that she 
asserted her eligibility under this criterion that the Director did not consider. Specifically, in her 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner made arguments for her eligibility under this criterion 
based upon the display of her work at "VidCon US" and "VidCon Mexico." However, the Director's 
decision does not reflect the Director considered the Petitioner's arguments for her eligibility under 
this criterion. The Director should, therefore, examine the Petitioner's claims and all evidence 
submitted in support of those claims when evaluating this criterion on remand. 
Finally, the Petitioner has consistently claimed that she can satisfy the "leading or critical role" 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), based on her claimed critical roles with I I I Iaffiliated organizations collectively 
known asl Iand wit ~--------------~ The decision, however, does 
not specifically acknowledge this claim, and only determined that the Petitioner did not play a leading 
role with~-------------------------------' In addition, 
although the decision referenced "information about the institutes and letters of recommendations 
which discuss her work," in its analysis it does not specifically address any of the documentation 
submitted, such as letters from L-C- ofl Ior L-G-G- from
I I We therefore remand the matter to the Director to re-exa~m_i_n_e_t_h_e_e_v-id_e_n_c_e_s_u_b_m_i-tt_e_d_i~n 
support of this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). If, after review, the 
Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the decision should include an 
analysis of the totality of the record, evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record 
demonstrates that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that 
her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 
203(b )(l)(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. 
4