dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24844951 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 11, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business data engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in business . 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 . Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the beneficiary met any of the ten evidentiary criteria required to show eligibility for this 
visa classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they 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 they are 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a business data engineer who intends to continue working in this field in the United 
States. Because he has not indicated or established that he has won a major, internationally recognized 
award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did not meet any of 
the following criteria: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance in the field; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), Commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert that he qualifies under all of these criteria, as well as 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), membership in associations that require outstanding achievements, and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), authorship of scholarly articles in the field, which he had also claimed in 
the underlying petition. Upon a review of all the evidence, the Petitioner has not established that he 
meets at least three of the regulatory criteria, for the reasons below. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner states that he qualifies for this criterion due to his membership in the following: 
• Amazon Web Services (A WS) Certified Global Community; 
• Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); 
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); and 
• Data Quality and Data Governance Forum on Linkedln. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner's membership in these organizations is based on 
outstanding achievements in his field, as judged by recognized national or international experts in that 
field. The Petitioner submitted a certificate stating that he successfully completed the requirements to 
2 
be an "AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate," as well as documentation indicating that this 
certification requires the completion of certain coursework. 1 It is not apparent that being "AWS 
certified" constitutes membership in an association. Instead, a message from an administrator of the 
A WS Certified Global Community website indicates that they don't offer membership documentation 
because "this community is a benefit of being certified." Another screen capture of the A WS 
certification website indicates that the A WS Certified Global Community is a forum for certified 
professionals to communicate with each other. This does not establish that the A WS Certified Global 
Community is an association, or that being A WS certified constitutes membership in an organization. 
Instead, it indicates that A WS certification is a professional credential. Furthermore, the record does 
not indicate that completing the required coursework for A WS certification constitutes an outstanding 
achievement in the field of data engineering or that this is judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field. 
The certificate from ACM stating that the Petitioner has been admitted for "Professional Membership" 
does not state the requirements for that membership, and the membership card for IEEE only states 
that the Petitioner is a "Member" in the "Germany section" without stating membership requirements. 
Finally, it is not apparent that a Linkedin forum such as the Data Quality and Data Governance forum 
constitutes an association, and the record does not include documentation of any membership 
requirements for that forum. Apart from the Petitioner's statements in his cover letters, there is no 
indication that any of these memberships require outstanding achievements in the field. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to submit sufficient relevant, probative, and credible evidence to demonstrate that 
his claims are more likely than not to be true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
The documentation in the record does not establish that any of the Petitioner's memberships are based 
on outstanding achievements, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the 
Petitioner's field. The Petitioner does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner states that he qualifies for this criterion based on instances in which he judged the work 
of his colleagues. The Director concluded that this was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner had 
participated in a judge of the work of others. We will withdraw this finding. 
The letter from A-G-, who worked with the Petitioner atl I a Russian grocery and retail chain, 
states that the Petitioner interviewed, selected, and supervised a team of subordinate data engineers 
and was part of a performance review panel in May 2019. The letter states that the panel was part of 
the company's twice-yearly performance review process, and that its purpose was to evaluate the 
workers' KPis, or key performance indicators. This letter provides sufficient information to establish 
1 While the Petitioner's letter in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) states that A WS certification also 
requires "significant experience" in certain professional fields, this is not supp01ied by the documentation provided. 
Furthermore, professional experience in a field is not an outstanding achievement as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in that field, and so does not establish eligibility for this criterion. 
3 
that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field on this occasion. 2 The 
Petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner states that he qualifies for this criterion based on his work forl I and forl I a 
division of the rail carrier _ I as well as his publications and a conference speaking 
engagement. To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he made original contributions 
to his field and that those contributions have been of major significance to the field. 
At I I the Petitioner co-developed a corporate data warehousing project (DWH) which helped 
the company implement digital analytics and business intelligence in its operations. While the letters 
provided from the Petitioner's coworkers atl I indicate that DWH was helpful to the company, 
they do not show that his contribution was original or had major significance to his field beyond 
I I See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 393-394 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding that contributions 
which were not adopted beyond a petitioner's employer do not meet this criterion). For example, the 
initial letter from the Petitioner's supervisor atl I A-E-, states that the DWH, which was 
developed in 2010, "madel lone of the first data-driven companies in the corporate market." 
However, the petition does not contain documentation to support this assertion or to otherwise 
demonstrate that the DWH was an original and significant contribution to the field of data engineering. 
The Petitioner submits a screen capture of a 2018 article stating that I !developed a logistics 
portal for its suppliers which would increase the efficiency of its supply chain, 3 as well as a Cnews 
article about I I implementation of I I and documentation of a conference talk the 
Petitioner's manager gave about DWH. None of this documentation mentions the Petitioner by name 
or establishes what influence the Petitioner's work had on his field. The fact that some of the results 
of the Petitioner's work were publicized does not indicate that they were of major significance to his 
field beyond! I There is insufficient relevant, probative, and credible evidence in the record to 
establish the originality or impact ofDWH. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. 
Similarly, the record does not establish that the the 
Petitioner developed at had an influence on the Petitioner's field. A support letter from a 
coworker states that was used as the basis for various analytics projects at I I 
including the which tracks and analyzes freight car unit 
failures and has been highly successful for the organization. The Petitioner also submits a 2020 article 
from Cnews which discusses howl lwas developed withl from 2017 to 
2019. However, the article does not indicate what impact I I had beyond I I See Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th at 393-394. 
2 The Petitioner also submitted several other documents in support of this criterion, but because the letter from A-G- is 
dispositive of this criterion, we need not analyze them here. See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"). 
3 The screen capture is not a website printout and does not include the article's URL, which makes it difficult to verify and 
diminishes its evidentiary value. 
4 
A second article stating that I I was under consideration for inclusion in the Russian Software 
Registry does not establish the significance of this consideration. One expert quoted in the article 
states that I I customers and partners could theoretically employ its business 
intelligence platform when using its services, and that the organization could use its expertise to enter 
into the domestic business intelligence market. However, another quoted expert states that companies 
in different industries require individualized business intelligence solutions and a specialized platform 
like lwould be of limited use to other organizations. A third expert expresses doubt that I I I would develop business intelligence solutions outside its own enterprises. While this article 
speculates about the potential impact ofl I it does not establish what impact the Petitioner's work 
has actually had on his field. Furthermore, the Petitioner is not mentioned in any of the articles 
provided. This does not suffice to establish his eligibility for this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not shown that his work forl I had significant impact on the field of 
data engineering. All of the Petitioner's letters of support are from his coworkers, and while these 
letters are probative, "[i]t is generally expected that one whose accomplishments have garnered 
sustained national or international acclaim would have received recognition for his or her 
accomplishments well beyond the circle of his or her personal and professional acquaintances." See 
generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The evidence 
doesn't show that the Petitioner's contributions have been recognized beyond his immediate 
professional circle. While his colleagues recognize the Petitioner as a highly capable worker, this does 
not establish that his work has impacted his field in a major way. Id. at F.2, Appendix: Extraordinary 
Ability Petitioners - First Step of Reviewing Evidence (stating that major significance to a field can 
be shown through means such as widespread commentary, impact, or adoption of a petitioner's 
contribution in that field). Finally, the various provided articles about the general importance of data 
analytics to corporations do not mention the Petitioner or his work. The record does not document 
how, specifically, DWH or I I influenced others in the field of data engineering. 
The Petitioner also states he qualifies for this criterion based on articles he posted on the website 
Medium. First, it is noted that the articles were not submitted with the evidence. Instead, the Petitioner 
provided the URL of each article. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Referencing a website where evidence can be found does not 
meet this burden. While we have the discretion to verify the Petitioner's claims, we are under no 
obligation to obtain supporting evidence on the Petitioner's behalf or on his request. The URLs 
provided to not establish that the Petitioner's articles were original. 
Secondly, the record includes readership statistics indicating that the Petitioner's articles have been 
read between 66 and 526 times each. While the Petitioner states in his RFE response that "more than 
2500 professionals" have read his articles, he arrives at this number by adding up the total number of 
times all of his articles were viewed. Medium indicates that "Views are the number of visitors who 
clicked on a story's page, while Reads tells you how many viewers have read the entire story (an 
estimate)." Publication Stats Medium Help Center, https://help.medium.com/hc/en­
us/articles/215793317-Publication-stats. The number of views of the Petitioner's articles therefore 
does not reflect how many times the articles were read. It is also not apparent that each view came 
from a different individual. The Petitioner does not provide evidence showing that any of these 
readers cited his articles or were otherwise influenced by them, or that these readership figures 
distinguish him from other writers in his field. This does not establish eligibility for this criterion. 
5 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted examples of his postings on professional forums, as 
well as a few instances in which others in his field asked for his advice and assistance. However, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work in any of these instances was original or had 
an impact beyond the individuals whose questions the Petitioner was answering. Finally, the copy of 
the Petitioner's presentation at the 20221 !conference, his speaking invitation, and the general 
information about that conference do not establish his eligibility. The fact that the Petitioner spoke at 
a conference does not establish that his presentation was original or that it had an impact on his field. 
The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's contributions to his field have been original or 
majorly significant to that field. As such, he does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner states that he qualifies for this criterion based on articles he published on the website 
Medium and provides the URLs where the articles are located, as well as general information about 
Medium's level of readership. However, since these articles are not included in the record, it is not 
apparent that they are scholarly in nature. A scholarly article should be written for learned persons in 
that field. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual at F.2, Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitioners 
- First Step of Reviewing Evidence ( defining "learned persons" as persons with profound knowledge 
or scholarship in a field). Furthermore, as noted above, the burden of proof in this proceeding is on 
the Petitioner. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The URLs provided do not establish 
the substance or nature of the Petitioner's articles. While the Petitioner provided documentation 
indicating that Medium is a widely-read website, the evidence does not demonstrate that his articles 
were written for learned persons in his field. The record does not indicate that the Petitioner's articles 
are scholarly in nature. 
Additionally, while the Petitioner characterizes Medium as a professional or major trade publication, 
he does not provide sufficient documentation of Medium's subject matter or intended audience to 
support this claim. The fact that Medium is widely-read does not establish that it is a professional or 
trade publication in the Petitioner's field. Id. The Petitioner does not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner states that he qualifies for this criterion based on the pay he received in Russia and 
Germany from 2020 to 2021. The Director found that much of the evidence provided in support of 
this criterion did not match the Petitioner's stated occupation or consisted of incomplete website 
printouts that were insufficient to establish eligibility. On appeal, the Petitioner provides a letter with 
explanations of his evidence. Upon review, the Petitioner does not qualify for this criterion. 
In order to evaluate whether a petitioner has received significantly high remuneration for services, we 
compare their pay to that of similar workers in that petitioner's field. See, e.g., Skokos v. DHS, 420 
Fed.Appx. 712, 713-714 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that a security consultant's salary should be compared 
6 
to that of other security consultants performing similar work). In this instance, much of the Petitioner's 
wage evidence is too general to establish that he has received significantly high remuneration in 
comparison to similar workers. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner earned the following remuneration in 2020 and 2021: 
• 2020 Russian earnings: 2,943,441 rubles; 
• 2021 Russian earnings (January to March): 680,252 rubles; and 
• 2021 German earnings (April to December): 84,286 euros. 
In order to establish that his 2020 and 2021 Russian earnings were significantly high, the Petitioner 
submits pay documentation, a cover letter, and screen captures from various websites. 4 One graph, 
which the Petitioner states is from habr.com, documents the average salaries for all information 
technology (IT) workers in various Russian cities in the second quarter of 2020. This graph indicates 
that the average such salary inl I where the Petitioner worked, averaged 80,000 rubles for the 
second quarter of 2020, or 320,000 rubles a year. However, this appears inclusive of all IT workers, 
not solely business data engineers, and so does not establish his eligibility. Id. 
Another graph the Petitioner states is from the same website indicates that the average 2020 wage for 
backend developers inl I was 110,478 rubles a month, or 1,325,616 rubles a year. It also 
states that the 75th percentile wage for these workers was 150,000 rubles a month, or 1.8 million rubles 
a year, and the 90th percentile wage was 200,000 rubles a month, or 2.4 million rubles a year. This 
document indicates that it is based on only 38 profiles, which limits its value in showing that the 
Petitioner's wages are significantly high in relation to similar workers. Additionally, while we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's statement that "backend developer" is the closest position he could find 
to his own specialty of data engineering, he did not provide information such as this website's 
definition of the duties of a backend developer or a list of relevant occupations that were surveyed. 
This is insufficient to establish that the wages for backend developers, as stated on this website, reflect 
wages of workers who are comparable to the Petitioner. 
A third screen capture, which the Petitioner describes as government statistics provided by Rosstat, 
surveys wages for different types of workers in the region ofl land states that the average 
monthly wage for "high-level qualification specialists" in October 2021 was 45,559 rubles a month, 
or 546,708 rubles a year. Since this wage survey includes workers in various industries unrelated to 
the Petitioner's specialty, it does not establish that the Petitioner receives significantly high 
remuneration compared to others in his field. 
4 As noted by the Director, the Petitioner did not submit website printouts for this evidence. Instead, he submitted various 
cropped screen captures of the websites he was citing, many of which were incorporated into his RFE response letter, and 
separately listed the URLs where he states the information came from. On appeal, the Petitioner states that he submitted 
the evidence in this fashion in order to print fewer pages and simplify his petition and that we should visit the URLs 
provided in order to view the original information. However, we determine eligibility based on the evidence submitted 
with the benefit request, which is contained in the record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8); 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). It is 
the Petitioner's burden to submit sufficient relevant, probative, and credible documentation to establish eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. Submitting separate URLs and cropped 
screen captures diminishes the evidentiary value of the Petitioner's documentation here, because it is not apparent from 
the record of proceeding that the information provided comes from the same place as the URLs. 
7 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner's pay evidence for his work in Russia consists of invoices for 
services provided as a contractor. It is therefore not apparent that his remuneration is comparable to 
the information in the websites he provided, which consisted of the wages of salaried workers. The 
totality of the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's pay in Russia qualified as significantly 
high remuneration. 
Regarding his wages in Germany, the Petitioner submits a screen capture of a wage survey of German 
software engineers from the website of Robert Half, and highlights the fact that the average annual 
wage for such workers is 64,250 euros. However, the survey is for the wages of all software engineers, 
rather than data engineering specialists like the Petitioner. Further, the screen capture does not state 
how many wages Robert Half surveyed to make its findings, which limits the data's evidentiary value. 
The Petitioner also submits a table from the website iamexpat.com which states that the average IT 
wage in Germany is 60,563 euros a year. This similarly does not include information about how many 
workers were surveyed and applies to the Petitioner's industry as a whole rather than his position in 
particular, and so does not establish eligibility. 
The screen capture from Stepstone.de consists of a graph stating that the average wage for workers in 
business intelligence, which the Petitioner states is closest to his specialty, is 62,178 euros a year. This 
screen capture contains no information about how many workers were surveyed to arrive at this 
number, the geographical location where these workers were employed, or their specific duties. 
Notably, the graph also includes wages for workers in "databases," "IT architecture," and general "IT 
consulting." It is not apparent from this documentation that the "business intelligence" wage reflects 
that of workers who are comparable to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner has not established that he commanded a high salary or other significant remuneration 
for his services in relation to others in his field. He does not meet the requirements of 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Although the 
Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, regarding leading 
or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we 
need not address this ground because the Beneficiary cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement 
of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final merits 
determination described in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we will reserve those issues. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, determining that it does 
not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for 
the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
8 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has submitted documentation of his successful career 
building data warehousing and business intelligence systems for various organizations, but has not 
demonstrated that these achievements have translated into a level of recognition that constitutes 
sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Furthermore, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9