sustained EB-1A Case: Motor Sports
Decision Summary
The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner's evidence met three of the ten regulatory criteria: published material about the alien, performing in a leading or critical role, and commanding a high salary. Upon conducting a final merits determination, the AAO concluded that the evidence demonstrated the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.
Criteria Discussed
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifying data deleted to prevent clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy PUBLlCCOPY U.S. Department of Homeland Security lJ.S. CitLr.cnship and Immigration Service:> Administrative Appeals Ornee (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 Washinuton. DC 20529<2090 u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services DATE: JUL 272012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: INRE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(I)(A) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Please note that all documents have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please also note that any further inquiry must be made to that office. Thank you, : .~. /' Perry Rhe\l. Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov Page 2 DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petitioner is an auto racing company. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or international acclaim. 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)(l)(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 specitic objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualitying evidence for the alien under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the beneficiary meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. I. Law Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: (I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall tirst 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) 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. 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 IOlst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 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. ld. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence: (i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; (ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classitication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; (iii) 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; (iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought; (v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business related contributions of major significance in the field; (vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles III the field, III professional or major trade publications or other major media; (vii) Evidence oftlle display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; (viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; (ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or Page 4 (x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 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. USCIS, 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. I With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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." [d. 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 concluded)." [d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this procedure: If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(A)(i). !d. at 1119-20. 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 This petition, filed on March 14, 2011, seeks to classify the petItIOner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a motor sports shock specialist. Upon review of the petitioner's appeal and the documentation of record, the AAO finds that the petitioner's evidence meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (viii), and (ix). Accordingly, the petitioner meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the 1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set fcrth ;n the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Page 5 minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 the[ir] 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, the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of the beneficiary's achievements as a shock specialist for teams competing at the highest level in National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) and has demonstrated the beneficiary's "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained national acclaim as a shock specialist and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. Moreover, the submitted documentation shows that the beneficiary is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. III. Conclusion In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence for the beneficiary under at least three of the ten categories of evidence and established a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and "sustained national or international acclaim." The petitioner has established that the beneficiary'S achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. The petitioner has also established that the beneficiary seeks to continue working in the same field in the United States. Further, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary'S entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established the beneficiary'S eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203 of the Act. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. ORDER: The decision ofilie director is v.ithdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.