remanded EB-1A Case: Tax Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2024 In Re: 33964221 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 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 l&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 their 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 they meet 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. 20 I 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a tax specialist who has worked for multinational accounting firms in Brazil and in 
the United States, as well as for the largest electricity provider in Latin America. He intends to 
continue is work in the United States as a founding partner of a business in Florida providing 
investment and tax consultancy services. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
relating to his service in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. The Director 
concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
(iv), (v), (vi), or (ix). 1 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that he meets the criteria at (iv), (v), (vi), and 
(ix). We will not disturb the Director's determination that the Petitioner met the requirements of the 
criterion at (viii), and we conclude that the Petitioner has also met the criteria at (iv) and (vi). 
Evidence ofthe individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence showing that he has served as an instructor for his employer, which 
involved evaluating and rating the coursework of his students. The record includes letters from his 
employer discussing the courses and the Petitioner's position as instructor, as well as documentation 
showing that the Petitioner judged the work of others in his field of specialization. We conclude that 
the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to meet the plain language requirements of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence ofthe individual's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
1 We note that, although the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusion with regard the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii) on appeal, the RFE response appeared to incorrectly reference the criterion at (iii) when referring to 
evidence relating to the criterion at (vi), which discusses authorship of articles in professional or major trade or other major 
media. That criterion is also addressed in this decision. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted scholarly articles in the field of tax law that he has written for his previous 
employer's website and for two publications in Brazil. One publication for which he is credited as 
one of three authors is _______ also known asl Iwhich the record establishes 
is a well-known, long-running Brazilian newspaper that provides news coverage to a Latin American 
audience. The Petitioner provided a source reference to Britannica.com, a trusted online encyclopedia 
written and fact-checked by editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. The Britannica.com entry2 describes 
I I as "widely respected for its thorough coverage of national and international news, its 
publication of the texts of speeches of important government officials, and other matter usually found 
in a country's newspaper ofrecord." This source reference, which states that I l"is sometimes 
called the I I of Latin America," affirms the newspaper's longevity and prestige. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has met the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the 
requisite three of ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
(vi), and (viii). We therefore need not consider whether he met additional claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) or (ix). 
We will withdraw the Director's denial of the petition and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the 
new determination and any other issues. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this matter on remand. On remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of 
the evidence of record. The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence 
evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained 
national or international acclaim, his status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his 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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 https://www.britannica.com/topic _____ accessed October 22, 2024 . 
3