remanded EB-1A Case: Social Media Influencer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2023 In Re: 28311126 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a blogger and social media influencer, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirement for this classification, which 
requires documentation of a major, internationally recognized award or evidence that meets at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner subsequently filed 
combined motions to reopen and reconsider, followed by a motion to reconsider. In both instances, 
the Director reaffirmed the denial of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I03.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 l&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. 
The Petitioner has appealed the unfavorable decision on her motion to reconsider, dated March 30, 
2023, in which the Director stated: 
After a thorough review, USCIS finds that the motion satisfies the regulatory requirement 
for filing a motion to reopen and/or reconsider at Title 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and 
103.5(a)(3). 
Therefore, USCIS grants the motion to reconsider the Form 1-140 of denied case 
I I 
After additional review of the record of proceeding, including your motion, users has 
determined that you have not established eligibility for the requested benefit. 
users is denying the approval of Form I-140. You will be receiving a decision letter 
under separate cover. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she did not receive a separate decision letter on her motion to 
reconsider and therefore, the Director failed to provide any substantive explanation regarding the basis 
for denial. 
The record supports the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not issue a legally sufficient 
decision with respect to her motion to reconsider. The Petitioner's brief on motion alleged several 
errors in the Director's application of the regulatory criteria at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) to the facts 
presented and in the Director's interpretation of the plain language of those criteria. The decision does 
not address these arguments, and instead summarily concludes those arguments were insufficient to 
overcome the Director's reasons for denying the petition. Although the Director advised the Petitioner 
that she would receive a decision on the merits under separate cover, users records indicate that no 
separate decision was issued. 
An officer's written decision must folly explain the specific reasons for denial. See 8 e.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). When a decision does not meet these requirements, the petitioner does not have a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision on appeal. See Matter ofM-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). 
Because the Director has not yet addressed the merits of the Petitioner's motion to reconsider and did 
not explain the specific reasons for affirming the denial, the record of proceeding is not ripe for us to 
consider the Petitioner's substantive arguments on appeal. We will therefore withdraw the Director's 
decision dated March 30, 2023, and remand the matter for farther review and entry 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. 
2