sustained EB-1A Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-G-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 27,2017 
PETITION:. FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an architect, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
provided documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in 
finding he did not meet at least three of the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
Petitioner further states that the evidence demonstrates his standing as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in his field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-L-
(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 
sustained acclaim and the 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 categories 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter o.fChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to 
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
At the time of filing the petition, the Petitioner worked as an architectural project manager for 
a real estate development and construction company in Florida. In this case, 
the Petitioner has not shown that he is the recipient of aqualifying award at a level similar to that of 
a Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For instance, the Petitioner submitted articles about himself in a 
major newspaper in Venezuela. Accordingly, the record supports the Director's finding that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-L-
, In addition, we find that the Petitioner has met the display criterion under 8_ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner offered documentation indicating that his work was exhibited at the 
an event that showcases architectural work. Furthermore, the Petitioner has performed 
in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record reflects that, 'as project director and lead architect in the architecture 
department at in Venezuela, the Petitioner oversaw the company's architecture 
and construction projects .. The Petitioner also provided documentation of awards received by 
and news articles about the company as evidence of its distinguished reputation. Thus, 
the Petitioner' has met this third criterion. Lastly, the appellate submission includes evidence 
showing that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The Petitioner submits documentation from his former employer reflecting annual 
compensation of $250,000 and occupational data from the U.S. Department of Labor indicating that 
his compensation was high relative to others in the field. Therefore, the Petitioher has satisfied more 
than three of the regulatory criteria. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will conduct a final merits 
determination. We will consider the entire record in the context of whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) that he enjoys a level of expertise indicating that he is "one of a small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field"; and (2) that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Based on the record as a 
whole, we find the Petitioner has made the requisite showing. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has more 'than 25 years of experience as an architect working 
on significant projects such as hotels, shopping malls, and residential and commercial buildings. He 
also served for several years as a professor in the faculty of design at The 
Petitioner established that he performed in a leading or critical role as project manage~ for 
and as project director for an organization with a 
distinguished reputation. With respect to his career of acclaimed work, the record includes 
numerous articles about the Petitioner and his a rchitectural projects in publications such as 
and Furthermore, the Petitioner has authored multiple articles in . 
that highlight his architectural work and designs. We find that the 
extensive 
submitted coverage of the Petitioner in professional and major trade publications and other 
major media over two decades demonstrates his sustained national acclaim in the architecture field. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered documentation indicating that his work was exhibited at the 
and the 
, professional events that showcased his architectural projects. 
Further, the Petitioner's architectural designs have been recognized with awards from the 
and the Lastly, 
3 
Matter of D-G-L-
the Petitioner submits documentation showing that he has commanded a high level of compensation 
relative to other architects. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability as an architect. He submitted 
qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria and the record as a whole 
establishes that he has attained a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and sustained national acclaim. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. The Petitioner's. achievements have been recognized in his fi/eld of expertise through 
extensive documentation. Finally, he has shown that he seeks to continue working in the same field 
in the United States and that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has met his burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of D-G-L-, ID# 126489 (AAO Jan. 27, 20 17) 
4