sustained EB-1A Case: Business

PlfBUC COpy 
DATE JUN 1 9 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
13encficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admini~trativc Appeals Office (Ai\O) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(h)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(h)(1)(A) 
ON 13EHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed picase find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this maller have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
thaI any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Perr) Rhc" 
Chid. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained. 
The petitioner seeks classilication as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO 
is satisfied that the evidence of record in the aggregate, including that submitted on the appeal, 
adequately establishes the petitioner's eligibility for the classification. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
(i) thc 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. 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990): 5h Fed. Reg. hOS97, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Jd.: 
S C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at S c.r.R. § 204.S(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USc/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 2045(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Jd. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO conduded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3». 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business. Upon review of 
the entire record, the AAO finds that the petitioner's submitted evidence meets three of the 
regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii) and (ix). Accordingly. the 
I Specifically. the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel suostantivc or evidentiary 
requirements oeyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and S C.r.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
petitioner has established the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinaryahility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context 
of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thefir 1 field of endeavor:' 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2): and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act; 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
In the present matter, consistent with Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1994 J, 
the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his achievements in the field of business and 
has demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 10 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the 
petitioner's sustained acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise. As an entrepreneur, the petitioner is a former General Manager of the France-Israel Chamber 
of Commerce and holds a leading role as Chief Executive Officer of two companies, one of which was 
selected by Inc. in 2003 as one of the fastest-growing private companies in the United States. The 
other company has garnered media coverage. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that 
he has commanded significantly high remuneration for his services. Moreover, the petitioner 
submitted patents and corroborated reference letters from independent experts in the field, detailing 
his specific contributions and explaining how those contributions have influenced the field at large. 
Thus, the petitioner's achievements are commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of his fie/d. 
III. CONCLUSION 
While the AAO does not find that all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by 
counsel, the AAO does find the evidence of record sufficient to establish that the petitioner has 
demonstrated his eligibility for the classification sought. Specifically, upon careful review of the record, 
it is concluded that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is within 
the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of the business field. The evidence 
submitted establishes that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim, his achievements 
have been recognized in his field, he seeks to continue working in the same field and his entry will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. 
Page 5 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.