remanded EB-1A Case: Writing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18329194 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 04, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an author ofl l seeks classification as an alien 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements . 
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 further consideration and 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 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. 20 l 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 an award-winrng auror of1 1 who is also the creator and lead writer 
for~ Is television show, which was broadcast for one season on the Philippiner largest I 
television network. He states that he intends to continue to create books and other media for 
in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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 found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards and 
published media about him and his work. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly 
applied the relevant regulations, and that he meets five evidentiary criteria in addition to those granted 
by the Director. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that he meets the 
requisite three evidentiary criteria, and will therefore remand this matter to the Director for a final 
merits determination of whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that they have received a prize or award, 
that the prize or award was granted based upon excellence in their field of endeavor, and that the prize 
or award is recognized in the field at the national or international level. Here, the record includes 
evidence that the Petitioner has received the following awards: 
• Winner I I j 
.__I _________ ____.t for........,I ______,,[ .__I _ ____.]2012 
2 
• Winnerr-------,.--------------' Foundation, Inc., for '----------~ 
I I Lr------.---' 2 o 12 
• Winner Story Writing Contest, Literary Fiction in Filipino category, forl~----~I 
2009 
• Winner, 2009 '----------~ Story Writing Competition, forl I I I ~--~ 
• Story Writing Competition, for .... I ____ ____. ---------~ 
• First Prize.__ __ ___, Contest (A national competition for poetry)j._ ___ ..... l 2004 
While the record also includes evidence that he was a finalist for other awards, that evidence does not 
establish that he received a prize or award in those instances. 
Regarding the search held by thel I which led tol I being produced as al I television 
show, the evidence does not indicate that the three selected entries ( out of fifteen submitted) which 
were chosen as a result were announced publicly or otherwise received recognition in the field. 
Although the Petitioner is mentioned as the winner of the search in some of the materials which later 
promoted the television show, including material posted b~ I on its website, this promotional 
material does not show recognition in the field. 
Turning to the two awards received by the Petitioner in the.__ ________ ___, Story Writing 
Competitions, in addition to the notifications of the award winners and promotion of their works which 
appeared on the website of the sponsor of the competition, the record includes evidence that the 
Petitioner's receipt of these awards was also mentioned in broader media. Specifically, al I 
2009 article about the Petitioner posted on the website of ABS-CBN states that the awards were 
received "in one of the most prestigious I I writing competitions," and notes that the Petitioner 
is the first two-time recipient of the awards. In addition, the record includes other evidence about the 
organization which sponsors the competition and other winners. On the basis of this evidence, we 
agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In his decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion, but did not provide an 
analysis of the relevant evidence. On review, the previously mentioned! [ 2009 article posted 
on the website of ABS-CBN is about the Petitioner, as it goes into detail about his career and 
background, and about his work as a writer. In addition, other evidence in the record demonstrates 
that ABS-CBN is a leading media organization in the Philippines. We therefore agree with the 
Director and find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '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 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
3 
The plain language of this criterion requires evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an allied field of specialization, whether as an individual or as a member of a panel. In 
support of these requirements, the Petitioner provided evidence that he served as a judge for the third 
I I Short Story Writing Competition in 2007. In his decision, the Director cited to the Act 
at section 201(b)(l)(A)(i) and its requirement of "extensive documentation," as well as to the very 
high standard set for individuals of extraordinary ability noted in the comments to the implementing 
regulations, and found that this single instance of serving as a judge was not "consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim." 
As noted above, the Kazarian decision and subsequent USCTS policy memorandum 1 established a 
two-step analysis in the adjudication of petitions for individuals of extraordinary ability. In the first 
step, USCIS evaluates the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether the individual has 
received a major, internationally recognized award or meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
This step does not involve the determination of whether an individual is one of the small percentage 
at the very top of the field, or if they have sustained national or international acclaim. Only in the 
second step, after the initial evidentiary requirements have been met, are those standards applied to 
the totality of the evidence. 
Because the Petitioner has provided evidence of having judged the work of others in his field, we 
withdraw the Director's determination regarding this criterion and conclude that he meets the criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on our above analysis, the Petitioner meets three of the evidentiary criteria and thus the initial 
evidence requirement for this classification. As such, the second step of the analysis, the final merits 
determination, must be conducted. Because the Director did not perform a final merits determination 
in his decision, we are remanding this matter for him to do so. In accordance with USCIS policy, the 
Director should examine all of the evidence in the record and determine whether it shows, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and 
is one of the small percentage of children's book authors at the very top of the field. 
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. 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
4