remanded EB-1A Case: Technology Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22679019 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 27, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a chief technology officer (CTO) , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See 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 that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . 
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 for the 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 sma ll percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeav or." 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regu lation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi -part analysis . First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). 
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); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash . 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a technical trainer, project manager, systems architect, and entrepreneur, claims to be 
multidisciplinary expert in the fields of science, business, and education. He currently serves as the 
chief executive officer and CTO for several companies, and seeks to continue working in his field of 
expertise in the United States as CTO for I in I New Jersey. As he 
has not received a major, internationally recognized award, the record must demonstrate that he 
satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence pertaining to seven of the ten criteria, including evidence of awards 
he received, published materials, service as a judge or juror, authorship of scholarly articles, original 
contributions of major significance, leading or critical role, and high salary. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)-(vi), (viii)-(ix) . The Director determined that he satisfied one criterion for leading 
or critical role. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director misclassified his field of extraordinary eligibility, 
and that the misclassification resulted in an erroneous determination that he only met one of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He further asserts that he meets the remaining six criteria as originally 
claimed, and submits additional evidence in support of this assertion. 
The Petitioner provided a supporting cover letter with the initial filing in which he described his 
employment background and work experience, and broadly stated that he possessed extraordinary 
ability in the fields of science, business, and education. In Part 6 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Worker (Form 1-140), the Petitioner listed his job title as "CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 
OFFICER (CTO)," and described his position as "handling both executive and technical decisions for 
the company & appointing executive managers." The Petitioner emphasized his multidisciplinary 
experience and noted that his areas of expertise included artificial intelligence, machine learning, web 
application development, embedded systems, robotics, and big data analytics. The Petitioner also 
expressed his intent to continue working in the United States as a CTO and, while no offer of 
employment is required for the requested classification, submitted a letter froml I 
2 
President of confirming the company's offer of employment to the 
Petitioner for the position of CTO at its offices in New Jersey. 
The Petitioner discussed his experience and expertise, and broadly claimed to qualify as an individual 
of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, business, and education. However, none of the 
evidence he submitted in support of the petition identifies with any specificity his area of extraordinary 
ability. Although the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), he did not seek clarification of the 
Petitioner's area of extraordinary ability. Instead, the Director concluded in the RFE that the 
Petitioner's field of endeavor was electrical engineering and materials science, and requested evidence 
in support of the Petitioner's extraordinary ability in that field. 1 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner argued that the Director's conclusions regarding his field of 
endeavor and work intentions were incorrect, and requested that the Director evaluate his eligibility 
as a CTO based on the claims outlined in his initial supporting documentation. Specifically, while the 
Petitioner acknowledged that he did in fact possess expertise in electrical engineering and materials 
science, 2 he reaffirmed that his field of endeavor was in fact multidisciplinary, and requested that the 
Director evaluate his eligibility as a CTO in multidisciplinary fields as originally claimed. 3 
In dismissing the appeal, the Director, citing to Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm. 1998), concluded that the Petitioner's assertions regarding the nature of his field of endeavor 
in response to the RFE constituted a material change to the petition, noting that a petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's area of expertise was electrical engineering 
and materials science, and evaluated the Petitioner's evidence as it pertained to extraordinary ability 
in that particular field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again contests the Director's determination regarding his expertise and field 
of endeavor, and maintains that his response to the RFE contained no material change to the petition. 
Specifically, the Petitioner points out that his extraordinary ability in the fields of science, business, 
and education, as well as his intent to continue working as a CTO in the United States, was clearly 
articulated in both the Form I-140 and in his initial supporting documents. The Petitioner argues that 
the Director's unilateral conclusion that his field of endeavor was electrical engineering and materials 
science, despite his objections in response to the RFE, was erroneous. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion. The documents submitted in support of the 
petition demonstrate that the Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as a multidisciplinary expert in 
the fields of science, business, and education at the time of filing. Therefore, the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner's articulation of such claims in response to the RFE constituted a 
material change to the petition is misplaced. Here, the Director did not accurately identify or explain 
1 Specifically, the Director stated, "The Petitioner intends to work as an electrical engineer and material science expert for 
electronic devices." 
2 In reviewing the Petitioner's letter of support, he stated on page 5 that "I am considered a person of extraordinary ability 
in the field of electrical engineering and material science for electronic devices." 
3 In his RFE response, the Petitioner stated, "I sincerely request the immigration officer not to consider 'electrical engineer 
and material science expe1i for electronic devices' as my only area of expertise and intended area of work because I am 
also a Technical Educator, CEO, CTO, Project manager, System Architect and Entrepreneur." 
3 
the deficiencies in the evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i), 4 but instead concluded that 
the Petitioner's field of endeavor was exclusively limited to electrical engineering and materials 
science, despite the Petitioner's objections and assertions to the contrary. 
Therefore, we are remanding the matter for the Director to seek further information and clarification 
of the Petitioner's area of extraordinary ability, as he cannot proceed with an assessment of the 
Petitioner's eligibility within the context of Kazarian 's two-step analysis until the Petitioner conveys 
a meaningful understanding of his area of extraordinary ability . The Director may issue an RFE 
requesting additional evidence addressing this critical element. Once the Petitioner provides the 
necessary clarification about extraordinary ability and his field of endeavor, the Director shall then 
analyze the supporting evidence to determine whether the Petitioner has submitted the required initial 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria and, 
if met, shall assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrates that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn and the matter is remanded for further 
consideration and the entry of a new decision consistent with the above analysis. 
4 See also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying 
a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
4