sustained EB-1A Case: International Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4689485 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 7, 2020 
PETITION: Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an international relations scholar and consultant, 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 Texas Service Center approved the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. 
Subsequently, however, the Director of the Texas Service Center issued a notice of intent to revoke 
and later revoked the approval of the immigrant petition, finding that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) had approved the petition in error. 1 Specifically, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least 
three. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal. 2 The matter is now before us 
on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. With the motions, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief asserting that he fulfills at least three of the ten criteria and qualifies as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon review, we will grant the motion to reopen and sustain the appeal. 3 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
1 The Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the 
approval of any petition . . .. " Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. By regulation this revocation authority is delegated 
to any USCIS officer who is authorized to approve an immigrant visa petition . 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). 
2 See Matter ofD-A -, ID# 1518916 (AAO Jan. 25, 2019). 
3 As we are granting the Petitioner 's motion to reopen , the motion to reconsider is moot. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
Furthermore, 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 m 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
As 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). We previously determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of only two 
criteria: scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading role under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 4 
With respect to the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), our appellate decision 
concluded that the Petitioner's letters of support did not provide sufficiently detailed information to 
demonstrate the nature of specific contributions he made to the field that have been considered to be 
of major significance. With his motion to reopen, the Petitioner resents new letters and other 
supporting evidence offering more detailed information a hi actions and their majorly 
significant implications towards furthering stabilit in th For example, the record shows 
that his specific work was central to diffusing,__ __ ----====-tensions afterc::=]seized al I vessel 
I I attempting to breach the blockade ofc=] and in the aftermath of a cross-border 
shooting along the I I border. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in his field. Accordingly, as the record 
now demonstrates that he has satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria, we grant the motion 
to reopen and consider the record as a whole in the context of a final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the record satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we will 
analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
accomplishments are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of 
endeavor. We evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, making him one of the small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(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. In the present matter, the Petitioner has shown his eligibility 
for this classification. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has performed in leading roles as.__ _______ ____. and 
I 
I at thel IEmbass in Washin ton D.C. In addition, he served in other senior 
_ I positions including'-----------.----,-----' at the I !Embassy inl I Japan and 
._H_e-ad_o_f_t_.hel !division at the,__ _ _.Ministry of Foreign Affairs. More recently, the 
Petitioner has worked as a Scholar-in-Residence at I I University, a Visiting Fellow at the 
I I and Senior Fellow at the I I These senior 
I I roles and scholarly appointments help set the Petitioner apart through a "career of 
4 For instance, the Petitioner authored re orts for the and performed in a leading role asl 
I landl lat the.__ ___ ____,in Washington, D.C. .__ ___ _. 
3 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. See H. Rep. No. 101-723, at 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
While at the the Petitioner has authored multiple articles and re orts relatin to 
'---~-....,...... policy towards.__-.--------.----~;I I amon"""g ________ _ 
and.___~ reestablishment of,__ ___ ___, relations; and development o-~-------~ 
energy reserves. In addition, the record includes evidence that the Petitioner has been quoted as an 
expert inl I policy and I I relations by major media such as CNN and the New 
York Times. Also, he has appeared on CNN and Al Jazeera networks, and contributed articles and 
editorials to the Washington Post and the New York Times. We find that the Petitioner's publication 
record and involvement with major news outlets is consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim in his field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has presented letters of support offering detailed information regarding his 
I I achievements and contributions to fortherin[ stabiyty in thel I For example, 
~----------~---------1 in the Prime Minister's Office, stated that 
the Petitioner's contribu~ of major significance included "helping the strengthen its 
sanctions regime a~ains(_J" "navigating the diplomatic crisis betwee following 
the I l incident," and "containing tensions between,__ ___ ~--~ a ter a cross-
border shooting." The record contains additional letters from former ambassadors 
former ambassador to both thel I a former U.S. Senator, and former==========-p_o_li_c_,y 
advisers. While not all of them include the level of detail presented on motion, these letters from high­
level government officials and diplomats attest to the major significance of the Petitioner's work, his 
acclaimed accomplishments in the field, and standing as a top I I expert. 
In summary, the Petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability as an international relations 
scholar and consultant. The totality of the evidence establishes that he possesses a level of expertise 
that is consistent with a finding that he is one of a small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor and that he has documented sustained acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
With his motion to reopen, the Petitioner has submitted evidence establishing that he meets at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The record also demonstrates 
sustained national and international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized through 
extensive documentation. Lastly, the Petitioner has shown that he intends to continue working in his 
area of expertise and that he will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. He therefore 
qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted and the appeal is sustained. 
4