dismissed EB-1A Case: Blockchain

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-A-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 16, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a block chain solution architect, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in business. 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
.
Matter of J-A-S-
requirements. First, a pet1t1oner can demonstrate 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 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 it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary'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. USCJS, 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); Rifai 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a block chain solution architect who has been employed at 
Because he 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The record reflects that the 
Petitioner commanded a high salary compared to others in his field in the United Arab Emirates 
(UAE). Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the high salary 
criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets three additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publication s 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from .com relating to the 
Although the Petitioner provided a quote for article , it does not 
2 
.
Matter of J-A-S-
constitute published material about him. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. 
Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that he "provided the ranking about that this 
newspaper is among [the] top Newspaper[s] of [the] [M]iddle East." The record, however, does not 
contain the claimed evidence , and the Petitioner did not otherwise establish that com is 
a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. For these reasons, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-r elated 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that he successfully invented which he describes as a 
In addition, he claims that his most important invention is 
Moreover, the Petitioner argues that he has been invited to speak at conferences. In 
order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
As it relates to the Petitioner submitted background information and contracts 
reflecting that three companies utilized the software. Although the contracts demonstrate that 
has been implemented in relation to rental properties, the Petitioner did not establish that such 
usage is at a level considered to be of major significance. 1 For example, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence showing the relative popularity of --~ among software products employed 
by vacation and rental companies. 
Regarding the Petition er presented an executive summary and an unidentified website 
article discussing the purpose and background of the product. The documentation, however, does 
not indicate that is considered by the field to be of major significance. Further, while 
the Petitioner provided three recommendation letters, they do not contain specific, detailed 
information establishing the impact of on the field. For instance , vice 
president of , stated that he invited the Petitioner to join his research 
group "because [he] noticed his significant contributions he made in block chain technology." 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 8-9 (Dec . 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a b allroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corrobor ate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
3 
.
Matter of 1-A-S-
however, did not identify the Petitioner ' s specific contributions and why he considered 
them to be significant. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Moreover, professor at the stated that he 
"noticed from reading the website that [the Petitioner ' s] block chain [sic] career is really 
taking off." Rather than discussing how he personally knows that the Petitioner's has 
greatly influenced the field, he based his opinion on the product's website. Furthermore , 
, advisor for indicated that it is "better then [sic] all existing technologies ," and the 
Petitioner's "groundbreaking research work is of vital importance our country ' s cyber security, " but 
he does not explain why he believes is better than the other products and how it has been 
of major significance in cyber security. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner 's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. Att '.Y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Finally , the record contains prospective invitations for the Petitioner to attend the 
in UAE and the in Switzerland. Notwithstanding that 
the Petitioner did not establish that he attended the conferences, invitations to participate in 
conferences in-and-of-themselves do not show original contributions of major significance. 
Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of "major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), 
ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his attendance at 
conferences resulted in original contributions of major significance in the field, or that his invitations 
were reflective of such contributions. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner argues that he performed in a leading role for in Pakistan, 
in several countries , in UAE, in Delaware, and 
Jersey. For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading.2 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
4 
in New 
A title, 
.
Matter of 1-A-S-
Although the Petitioner submitted business records for some of the aforementioned companies, they 
do not show his role with the organizations. For instance, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from 
the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan indicating registration , a 
letter from the assigning an employer identification number, 
and a document from the _____ registering m Pakistan. 
The record does contain evidence reflecting that the Petitioner is the owner of in 
New York and part owner of in the UAE. Thus, as owner of these companies, it appears 
that he performed in a leading role for them. 3 This criterion, however, also requires that the 
organizations or establishments must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is 
marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 4 Here, the Petitioner does not claim that these 
organizations have distinguished reputations, and the record does not include evidence showing their 
eminent standings in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-A-S-, ID# 1504081 (AAO July 16, 2018) 
'We note that the record does not specifically illustrate his duties or specific position within these companies. 
4 /datl0-11. 
5