remanded EB-1A Case: Television Host

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17586777 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 16, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a television host, 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 while the Petitioner met 
the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, the record did not establish that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage of individuals at the top 
of his field. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; MatterofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec . 369,375 (AAO 2010). 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) 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 can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 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. USCJS, 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. 20l3);Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner works as a television host in Venezuela and intends to work in 
a similar capacity in the United States. 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, 
he must demonstrate that he meets the initial evidence requirements by satisfying at least three of the 
ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed that he could satisfy as many as 
six of these criteria, and the Director determined that he met three of them. Specifically, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized awards or prizes, published materials in major media, and judging the work of others in an 
allied field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that he meets the criteria 
related to leading or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation and 
commercial success in the performing arts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (x). 1 
Because the Petitioner demonstrated that he met the initial evidence requirements, the Director was 
required to conduct a final merits determination. In a final merits detennination, the Director must 
examine and weigh all of the evidence in the record to determine whether the Petitioner has the high 
level of expertise required for this immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Specifically, the Director 
must review the totality of the evidence, regardless of whether certain evidence was found to be 
sufficient to meet one of the evidentiary criteria, to dete1mine whether the Petitioner has sustained 
1 The record reflects thatthe Petitioner also initially claimed that he could meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3 )(vii), 
which requires evidence that he has displayed his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Director did not address 
this criterion in the final decision. 
2 
national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to properly conduct a final merits 
determination in which he considered all the evidence together in its totality, noting that the Director's 
analysis is limited to just a few sentences. We agree with that assertion as the decision contains little 
discussion of the submitted evidence. For example, although the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied the awards, published material, and judging criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
(iii), and (iv), the evidence related to these three criteria is barely mentioned or weighed in the final 
merits discussion or elsewhere in the decision. In fact, the Director's analysis of this evidence is 
contained in a single sentence: "The petitioner has two regional awards, articles that date back to 2010 
and while USCIS will concede[] that judging thel I pageant could be considered an 
allied field, it does not establish that the petitioner is someone who has reached the top of their field." 
We note that the Director had already determined that the Petitioner's twol IA wards 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires that he demonstrate his receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes. The Director's subsequent characterization 
of these awards as "regional awards," was contradictoryto this determination and not explained. With 
respect to the published materials in the record, the Petitioner maintains that he submitted evidence 
that he consistently received major media coverage between 2009 and 2019 and the Director failed to 
explain why such evidence would not contribute to a finding that he enjoyed sustained national 
acclaim. The Petitioner states that the Director's conclusion appears to be based, in large part, on the 
nature of his judging activities rather than on an analysis of the evidence as a whole. 
The Director further stated, without further reference to the facts of this case, that "[t]o be considered 
an alien of extraordinary ability, the petitioner is compared to those in his field as a whole, including 
those with more prestigious accomplishments, not solely those in his city or country." The Petitioner 
asserts that the Director applied a standard that would erroneously exclude an individual who enjoys 
national acclaim ( as opposed to international acclaim) from eligibility for this classification. We agree 
that the Director did not provide an adequate explanation for this statement, which appears to 
inaccurately equate national acclaim with city-wide acclaim. Nor did he explain his reasoning as to 
why the evidence here did not support a finding that the Petitioner compares favorably with those in 
his field as a whole. 
The Director's brief final merits discussion concludes with a determination that "the petitioner has not 
established that he has contributed to his field as a whole in some remarkable way resulting in 
sustained acclaim." The Director appears to be referring to elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v), which can be satisfied with evidence of an individual's original contributions of major 
significance in their field. The record reflects thatthe Petitioner did not claim to satisfy this evidentiary 
criterion. Because he neither claimed nor submitted evidence in support of that criterion, it was 
inappropriate to analyze whether the Petitioner has made "remarkable" contributions in his field and 
to weigh the lack of such evidence as a negative factor in determining eligibility. 
In addition to not fully weighing the evidence submitted in support of the three regulatory criteria that 
the Petitioner satisfied, the Director's final merits discussion disregarded evidence that the Petitioner 
3 
had provided in support of three additional criteria, as well as evidence he had submitted in support of 
his claim that he enjoys sustained national acclaim as a television host in Venezuela. Such evidence 
related to the display, leading or critical roles, and commercial success criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vii), (viii) and (x). Because the Director did not consider any of this evidence in the final 
merits analysis, the decision did not sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
he is an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203 (b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the Director's decision did not 
adequately explain the reasons for denial of the petition. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for further review and entry of a new decision. As the Director already determined that the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record, 
including additional evidence the Petitioner has provided on appeal. The Director should evaluate 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. See section203(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 decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis, which, if adverse, shall be certified 
to us for review. 
4