dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a digital signage designer and manufacturer, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 
"alien of extraordinary ability" in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign 
nationals 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
provided documentation that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary 
meets more than three criteria based on his association memberships, original contributions, leading 
or critical role, and high salary. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate a beneficiary's extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in his field through extensive 
documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act states: 
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, 
Matter of I- LLC 
(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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this 
documentation for the beneficiary, then it must provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least 
three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence for the beneficiary under at least three criteria, we will 
determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is the president and chief executive officer of the petitioning company, which 
develops customized, innovative, commercial-grade digital signage solutions for clients worldwide. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability "in the 
field of systems engineering with a focus on digital advertising." 
The Petitioner did not indicate, and the record does not establish, that the Beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner must 
therefore demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility under at least three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). With regard to the Beneficiary's eligibility under the leading or critical role 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the 
Director's decision provided contradictory statements. For both criteria, the decision first stated that 
"[t]he petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet the plain language of this criterion," but then 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of I- LLC 
in the next sentence concluded: "As such, the submitted evidence does not meet this criterion." The 
Director determined that the Beneficiary had not satisfied any of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary qualifies for the leading or 
critical role and high salary criteria, as well as the membership in associations requiring outstanding 
achievements criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the original contributions of major 
significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). For the reasons discussed below, the record 
does not support a finding that the Beneficiary meets the plain language requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of' lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awardsfor excellence in the.field o.lendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted awards that the Beneficiary received from his client, 
for' and' 
' but did not offer evidence demonstrating that these awards were recognized on a national 
or international level. In addition, the Petitioner provided an award from the 
that was "presented to As the plain language of this criterion requires "the 
alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field," awards received by his client are not sufficient. The record does not contain evidence that the 
Beneficiary received an award at the or that his client's award from that event was 
nationally or internationally recognized. The Director found that the Beneficiary was not the 
recipient of any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, and the Petitioner does not 
contest that determination on appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation o.l the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought. which require outstanding achievements o.ltheir 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 provided a certificate stating that the Beneficiary completed the ' 
and became a ' The Petitioner has not 
established that earning this certification constitutes membership in an association requmng 
outstanding achievement, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted letters from chairman emeritus of the 
chairman of the education committee; and 
executive director of the identifying the Beneficiary as a member of the and its 
education committee. The Director's decision acknowledged the aforementioned letters, but noted 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- LLC 
that the Petitioner did not submit the 
membership." 
"constitution or bylaws which discuss the criteria for 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director discounted the letters from the officers of the 
as "insufficient" without considering or weighing their content. The initial letter from 
stated that ' membership is open to digital signage professionals," but did not offer 
any specific admission requirements. With regard to education committee , the letter from 
welcomed the Beneficiary to the committee, but did not list its membership 
requirements. letter stated that the nomination criteria for membership on the education 
committee included "recognized leadership and personal knowledge . . 
. with clear evidence of 
significant contributions to the field," "review of curriculum vitae and publications," "svggestions 
from the Executive Committee," and "attendance at and other indust{y events." The letter 
from does not offer sufficient information for us to determine that these requirements rise 
to the level of "outstanding achievements" in the Beneficiary's field. Furthermore, while 
mentioned that "selection of members is a major professional responsibility of each committee 
chairperson, " the record does not include documentation of the chairperson's credentials or other 
supporting evidence demonstrating that members ' achievements are judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the field. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic. schcilarly. artzstzc. athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion , the Petitioner offered letters of support , documentation that the 
Beneficiary is seeking a patent for his '' ' pictures of his digital signage 
displays, and various awards. The Director determined that the submissions . did not show that the 
Beneficiary's work equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision improperly discounted "detailed and 
compelling evidence from experts in the field attesting to the widespread acceptance of the 
technology developed by the [Beneficiary]." The Petitioner provided recommendation letters from 
the Beneficiary's clients and business partners. 2 Although the letters praise the Beneficiary's work, 
they do not demonstrate that his digital signage technologies have widely affected the field beyond 
his business partnerships or have otherwise risen to the level of scientitic or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation requires that 
the Beneficiary's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than only to his business 
partners and their 
signage customers. 
For example, a digital signage field application engineer at m 
Sweden, mentioned his company's long-term business partnership with the Beneficiary. 
listed their companies' various joint projects for customers such as 
2 We discuss only a sampling of these letters , but have reviewed and considered each one . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- LLC 
and In addition, described the Beneficiary's development of a 
a method for customers to update signs using a USB flash drive, a touch 
screen navigation application for digital signs, and digital signs that support internet connectivity. 
While discussed the Beneficiary's projects for clients, the record does not 
include 
documentary evidence indicating that his work has substantially impacted the digital signage 
industry or that his projects otherwise constitute original contributions of major significance in the 
field of systems engineering. ' 
a former global category marketing manager of scotch for (a 
alcoholic beverages company), stated that his company enlisted the Beneficiary to 
create a customized "digital media marketing 
player to display in retail locations" for 
noted that the Beneficiary "designed and engineered a new 
and unique circuit 
board" for reading and saving media, providing stable memory, and allowing simplistic 
programming and processing of message changes. He added that the Beneficiary's 5.6 inch digital 
signage box resembled "two boxes of and was reasonably priced, but he did not 
explain how the Beneficiary's digital media marketing player and circuit board were tantamount to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
and registered U.S. patent 
attorneys with the 
stated that they represent the Beneficiary in intellectual property matters and with regard to 
his invention of a for which a U.S. provisional patent application has 
been filed. The record does not include documentary evidence indicating that a U.S. or an 
international patent has already been granted for the invention. Regardless, while issuance of a 
patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not demonstrate that development of the 
invention is a scientific or business-related contribution of major significance in the field. Rather, 
the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Although 
and contended that the Beneficiary's "invention is a highly marketable 
system that has great potential to be sold in large volumes here in the U.S. and in foreign markets," 
there is not sufficient evidence to show that his system has already enjoyed high sales volumes in his 
industry or has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution of major significance in the fie,ld. 
Similarly, a senior industrial designer at in Sweden, indicated that the 
Beneficiary's distributes "DC power through a smart and simple 
solution" and that the invention "has the potential to revolutionize retail POS [point of sale] 
environment and customer experience." further noted that designs and prototypes of 
the invention were completed in 2016 and that a patent has been filed in the United States, 
but he did not provide examples of how the system has already affected the digital signage industry 
in a substantial way or otherwise constitutes a contribution of major significance .in the field. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of tiling. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), ( 12); Matter <d'Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). and 
expectations regarding the possible future impact of the Beneficiary's 
are not evidence of his eligibility at the time of filing. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- LLC 
cofounder and chief technology ot1icer of 
Kingdom, noted that the Beneficiary helped design and develop the 
escalator panel, which the Petitioner also manufactures. 
m the United 
company's 23 inch digital 
stated that 
honored the Beneficiary with an for ' 
for the digital escalator panel. In addition , listed three awards 
received by for its digital signage and three ' awards 
(2012 , 2013, and 2014) that the company presented to the Beneficiary for his work. With regard to 
the awards that the Beneficiary received from his client , and the 
award that was "presented to they have already been 
considered under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a separate and distinct criterion. Because separate criteria 
exist for awards and original contributions of major significance in the field, USCIS does not view 
the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a beneficiary meet at least three 
separate criteria. Nonetheless , the record does not establish that any of the aforementioned awards 
were reflective ofthe Beneficiary's original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific 
affirmations above. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or 
their impact in the field have little probative value. See I 756, Inc. v. US All 'y Gen.. 745 F. Supp. 9, 
15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration 
benefits adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated statements are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 
F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding 
that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence 
as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to 
evidence that is "in any way questionable "). The submission of reference letters suppot1ing the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the beneficiary's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). Without additional, specific evidence showing that his work has been unusually inf1uential, 
has substantially impacted the systems engineering field or digital signage industry, or has otherwise 
risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory 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). 
Although the Petitioner has not claimed that the Beneficiary is eligible Jor this criterion, it initially 
provided two online articles authored by the Beneficiary and posted at 
and The evidence offered, however, does not show that these two articles, 
which promote the Beneficiary's company and its products , are "scholarly" and that the 
aforementioned websites are professional or major trade publications or other major media . 
Accordingly , the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1- LLC 
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). 
In a letter accompanying the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary meets this 
regulatory criterion based on his "leading role for As supporting evidence, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from director for Northern Europe; a letter from 
a visual solutions architect at and 
Although the Director's decision stated that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion , 
we find the record does not support that conclusion. indicated that the Beneficiary has 
"worked closely with in Europe developing a unique product line" 
and tha~ his "experience and abilities has been very valuable for to reach the level 
of success with the Digital Signage market." Similarly, noted that the Beneficiary 
"has established a strong partnership between [the Petitioner] and our European counterparts 
Europe." further stated that the Beneficiary "helped put 
on the map of Digital Sighage in Europe ," that he "also works with . . . in the 
United States, " and that he "keeps raising the bar for our Digital Signage ' s division, by repeatedly 
developing thought-provoking solutions for us and our customers. " also listed various 
joint projects of and the Petitioner. 
In general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where a beneficiary fits within the hierarchy 
and duties of an organization or establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of his 
contributions to the organization or establishment's operational viability. The Petitioner did not 
provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where the Beneficiary's role fit 
within the overall hierarchy of While the Beneficiary collaborated with A vnet on projects for 
its customers, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that his duties 
and responsibilities were leading or critical for the company as a whole. The submitted 
documentation does not differentiate the Beneficiary from executives and senior engineers so 
as to demonstrate his leading role, and does not establish that his various digital signage projects 
contributed to the company in a way that was of substantial importance to its success or standing in 
the industry. Furthermore , regarding c;:ompany profile, USCIS need not rely on self­
promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) 
(concluding that USCIS did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to 
the magazine 's status as major media). Without further supporting evidence , we cannot conclude that 
has a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's finding that the 
Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remunerationfor services. in relation to others in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner provided statistical evidence indicating that the Beneficiary 's salary in Sweden was 
high relative to other private sector engineers , corporate production and operations managers , and 
7 
Matter of I- LLC 
managers of small enterprises. Thus, the record supports the Director's statement that the 
Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that the Beneficiary 
meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Had the Petitioner included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, our next step of analysis would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the submissions in the context of whether the Beneficiary has 
achieved: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the [beneficiary] has sustained national or 
international acclaim" and that his "achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done 
so, the proper conclusion is that the Beneficiary has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory 
requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate does not support a finding that the 
Beneficiary has achieved the level of expertise required for this classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary is an 
individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofl- LLC, ID# 142843 (AAO Nov. 30, 2016) 
. 8