remanded EB-1A Case: Tax Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 4, 2024 In Re: 34867782 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a tax lawyer, requests classification under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-
1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . Successful petitioners for 
U.S. permanent residence in this category must demonstrate "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and extensively document their achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met one of ten initial evidentiary requirements - two less than needed for a final merits 
determination. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he also satisfied evidentiary criteria regarding: 
• His membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members; 
• Published material about him and his work in his field; 
• His original contributions of major significance in the field; and 
• His performance in leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (viii). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he met the evidentiary criteria regarding published material about him and 
original contributions of major significance. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for a final merits determination consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise 
commensurate with "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Evidence of extraordinary ability must initially demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, 
international recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 If a petitioner meets either standard, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) must then make a final merits determination as to whether the record, as a whole, 
establishes their sustained national or international acclaim and recognized achievements placing them 
among the small percentage at their field's very top. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391 (5th Cir. 
2022) (finding USCIS' two-step analysis of extraordinary ability "consistent with the governing 
statute and regulation"); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B), www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Facts and Procedural History 
The record shows that the Petitioner, an Argentinian native and citizen, earned a law degree in his 
home country in 1998. The following year, he established his own firm, specializing in tax law. 
Argentinian universities later awarded him a specialization in financial and tax law and a postgraduate 
degree in tax law. 
Since coming to the United States in 2021, the Petitioner has completed additional studies. Earlier 
this year, a U.S. university awarded him a master's degree in American and transnational law. The 
Petitioner states that he eventually wants to establish his own tax law firm in the United States. 
The record supports the Director's findings that the Petitioner demonstrated his intent to continue 
working in his field in the United States and that his U.S. immigration would substantially benefit the 
country. See Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii), (iii) of the Act. But he still must establish his purported 
extraordinary ability in his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Petitioner does not claim - nor does the record indicate - his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Thus, to establish extraordinary ability, he must meet 
at least three of the ten initial evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
Evidence supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner met the evidentiary requirement regarding 
his participation as a judge of others' work in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). We will now 
review the additional evidentiary criteria he claims to have met. The Petitioner's evidence must 
objectively satisfy the parameters of the applicable regulatory description. See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.(2)(B). 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
B. Published Material About the Petitioner 
This criterion requires "[p ]ublished material about the [ noncitizen] in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, relating to [their] work in the field for which classification is 
sought." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). "Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation." Id. 
When adjudicating this requirement, users first determines whether published material relates to a 
petitioner and their specific work in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1). If 
so, the Agency then determines whether a publication qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication, or other major media. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1). When 
evaluating publications and media, relevant factors include: for professional and major trade 
publications, the intended audience; and, for major trade publications and other major media, the 
relative circulation, readership, or viewership. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted authenticated copies of newspaper articles about court cases he handled. He 
also provided evidence that a court in the Argentinian province where he lived posted decisions on a 
judicial website, including 55 of his cases. The Director, however, found insufficient evidence that 
the materials related to the Petitioner's work in the tax law field or that the publications qualify as 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner first contends that the Director erred in stating that "the Petitioner failed to 
submit evidence showing that materials have been published about [him] relating to [his] work in the 
field of tax law as a whole." To meet this criterion, published material must mention a petitioner and 
substantially discuss their work in their field. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1) ("[P]ublished 
material that ... includes a substantial discussion of the person's work in the field and mentions [them] 
in connection to the work may be considered material about [them] relating to [their] work.") 
A copy of a list of the Petitioner's cases published on the judicial website does not meet the criterion. 
Contrary to users policy, the published material excludes the cases' written decisions and thus does 
not mention him. But he provided copies of decisions of two of the listed cases. The two decisions 
mention the Petitioner and discuss arguments that he made in those tax-related cases. Thus, contrary 
to the Director's finding, we find that these two publications mention him and relate to his work in the 
tax law field. 
Also, as the Petitioner argues, a preponderance of the evidence identifies the provincial, judicial 
website as a professional publication. Under this criterion, qualifying media include "[p ]rofessional 
or major online publications regarding the person and the person's work." 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(2)(8)(1) (emphasis added). "[P]rofessional and trade journals are read by those of particular skill 
in particular professions or trades and are less commonly read by the populace at large." Braga v. 
Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO (FMOx), 2007 WL 9229758, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 
317 Fed.Appx. 680 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009). The record shows that a court selected the cases published 
on the judicial website based on their legal importance and that legal professionals, rather than "the 
populace at large," primarily viewed them. Thus, the judicial website qualifies as a professional 
publication. 
3 
Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner provided published material about himself 
in a professional online publication, relating to his work in his field. We will therefore withdraw the 
Director's contrary finding. 
C. Original Contributions of Major Significance 
To meet this requirement, a petitioner must submit"[ e ]vidence of the [ non citizen]' s original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
USCIS first determines whether a petitioner has made original contributions in their field. See 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1). If so, the Agency then considers whether those contributions 
have major significance in the field. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of newspaper articles and letters from others in his field. The materials 
indicate that his work as a tax lawyer resulted in repeals of, and changes to, tax regulations. The 
Director, however, found insufficient evidence that these original contributions had major significance 
in his field. The Director stated: 
While the evidence shows that the Petitioner is a professional in the tax field and has 
made original contributions to [his] [p]rovince ... , the record does not establish that 
[his] work had a remarkable impact or influence in the field of tax law as a whole .... 
The submitted evidence does not demonstrate that [his work] ha[ s] provoked a level of 
commentary or generated a degree of attention that meets the major significance 
threshold. 
The Petitioner argues that the Director overlooked evidence of his work's significance. He states that 
he "filed tax claims that no one presented before and after the judges considered the evidence and the 
situation, they ruled in favor of the taxpayers giving a new vision of the law of tax and the rights of 
taxpayers." He states that "a case must be really important for the deputies to decide to vote to modify 
the tax rule." 2 
Contrary to the Director's finding, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner's work had 
significance beyond his province. Newspaper articles about his work indicate the national scope of 
one of the repealed tax regulations. Also, a letter from a former deputy states that, after the Petitioner 
won the case regarding the regulation, the pair traveled to other Argentinian provinces to encourage 
other taxpayers to contest the regulation. Further, as the Petitioner argues, the case - the first of its 
kind brought in Argentina - provided guidance to judges and attorneys around the country. Also, the 
record shows that the regulation's repeal, which required businesses to buy special equipment to file 
their tax returns, came during a time of financial crisis for many Argentinian businesses. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner sufficiently provided evidence of original contributions of 
major significance in his field. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
2 The record shows that, similar to Congresspeople in the U.S. House of Representatives, deputies in Argentina represent 
constituents in that country's lower congressional house. 
4 
E. Remaining Issues 
The Petitioner has met the required amount of evidentiary criteria. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
(requiring a petitioner to meet at least three initial evidentiary requirements). We therefore reserve 
consideration of his arguments as to the criteria regarding membership in associations and 
performance in a leading or critical role. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions). 
USCIS must now make a final merits determination on the petition. The Director did not make this 
finding. Rather than make such a determination in the first instance, we will remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director must determine whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim and whether his achievements have been recognized in his field, identifying him as one of 
that small percentage who has risen to the field's very top. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(2)(B)(2). The Director should consider any potentially relevant evidence of record, even it does 
not fit one of the regulatory criteria or is not comparable evidence. Id. The petition's approval or 
denial should stern from the evidence's type and quality. Id. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
explaining the evidence's significance, and how it demonstrates his possession of sustained national 
or international acclaim and recognition in his field. Id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of published material about himself and his original contributions 
of major significance in his field. USCIS must now make a final merits determination on the petition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5