sustained EB-1A Case: Project Design

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 1 8 2014 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 )(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non­
precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. 
Thank you, 
#-~ 
Ron Rosenberg (/'---.. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability," pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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)(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 ofsuch 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, the petitioner submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, upon review of the entire 
record, the petitioner has established eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
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) 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. 
. ---------- - --------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 10151 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his 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. 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.1 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 ifthe 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)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted. If the petitioner 
satisfies at least three criteria, then USCIS will consider the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. 
ll. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability." The director concluded that 
the petitioner meets the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Upon review of the entire 
record, we finds that the petitioner's submitted evidence also meets an additional two of the 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and and (viii). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
We 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.P.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 )(1 )(A) of the Act; 8 
C.P.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), the 
petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his achievements and has demonstrated a "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 petitioner's sustained acclaim and that 
his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. 
The petitioner has worked in his field for approximately forty years and has designed and managed 
projects all over the world, including [n France, in Italy, in 
Germany, in Brazil and the m Turkey. The petitioner submitted 
letters from employers which demonstrated the leading and critical role he performed for them. In 
addition, the petitioner submitted evidence of the display of his work at exhibitions. He also 
submitted copies of articles from a variety of sources in a number of countries. While not all of the 
articles are about the petitioner or comply with the regulatory requirement that the petitioner include 
the publication, date and author, there is sufficient evidence that meets the requirements of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The remaining articles, including those he has been invited to write for an 
international trade journal discussing his projects, are relevant to the significance of the projects on 
which he has worked and his role for those projects. He currently owns his own business in Florida 
and is designing and managing projects in both the United States and abroad, including 
in Rome. Thus, in light of the above and other evidence of record consistent with eligibility, the 
petitioner's achievements are corrimensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
While not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by the petitioner, the evidence 
of record sufficient to establish that he 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 his field. The evidence submitted establishes that the petitioner has sustained national or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
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. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.