dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
clew k&k 20 Mass Ave , N W , Rm A3042 
i:T: -0 
4mwY4@~ k c. 8 
Washington, DC 20529 
Y , .$+g ,@qke 
,a 
, y~@.s~%% 4dpblW.j 
,- , *,<,*apt : .& UA~ $* - U.S. Citizenship 
#taqa&%s * and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 02 200 52232 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
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 : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
J Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
I (' Admin~strat~ve Appeals Office 
EAC 02 200 52232 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
business. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had the sustained 
national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
business, specifically in the offshore information technology (IT) outsourcing industry to continue his 
employment as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary was 
eligible under five regulatory criteria and submitted supporting materials including copies of his bachelor's and 
master's degrees, seven recommendation letters, the petitioner's financial statements, the merger plan between 
the petitioner and another Indian IT company, articles about and written by the beneficiary, and documentation 
of the beneficiary's past and proposed salary. The director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) that asked the 
petitioner to submit, inter uliu, evidence that the beneficiary had received a major internationally recognized 
award. In response to the RFE, counsel noted that the regulation does not require evidence of a major, 
internationally recognized award, but allows aliens to document their eligibility under at least three of ten other 
regulatory criteria. We agree that the director's request was unnecessary, but do not find this error to have 
EAC 02 200 52232 
Page 3 
prejudiced the petitioner because the director considered the evidence submitted under the entire regulation at 8 
C.F.R. fj 204.5(h) in her decision including the documents submitted in response to the RFE: three additional 
recommendation letters, two media articles about IT outsourcing, a summary of project information (SPJ) for a 
company of which the beneficiary is a shareholder and seven printouts from various websites mentioning the 
beneficiary or the petitioner. 
The director determined that the evidence indicated that the beneficiary had made worthy contributions to 
offshore outsourcing in the IT industry, but did not establish that he was an alien of extraordinary ability. On 
appeal, counsel contends that the director improperly compared the beneficiary to all CEOs in the business 
world, rather than in the beneficiary's specific field of offshore IT outsourcing. Although some of the director's 
statements in the RFE and her decision suggest that she compared the beneficiary to all CEOs, the director did 
specifically discuss the record in the context of the beneficiary's contributions to offshore IT outsourcing. The 
evidence submitted and counsel's remaining contentions are addressed in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(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 lhe material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner originally submitted five articles relating to his professional endeavors. Two articles are printouts 
from the website of Business Line which is subtitled "from THE HINDU group of publications." One article is 
a printout from the website of ZDNet India. The record contains no documentation that these two websites are 
professional, major trade publications or other major media. A fourth article is entitled "Divide to Prosper" and 
was published in the "Corporate Reports" of the March 16-31, 2002 edition of Business India. The article 
discusses the merger of the petitioner with Aptech, Ltd. and features a photograph of the beneficiary who is 
quoted repeatedly. Again, the record contains no circulation information or other evidence that Business India 
is a professional, major trade publication. The fourth article is an interview with the beneficiary entitled 
"Leading Player in Enterprise Application Integration" and was published in the January 14,2002 edition of the 
Wall Street Reporter. Counsel claims that this article "most impressively" demonstrates the beneficiary's 
extraordinary ability, but the evidence does not support his assertion. Rather, the article is apparently a paid 
self-endorsement. Under the heading, "Important Notice and Tenns of Use," the publishers state that "[tlhe 
company featured in each interview, statement or article compensates Wall Street Reporter Magazine, and or its 
affiliates." The notice then states that the petitioner paid the magazine $4,850. This paid self-endorsement is 
inconsistent with sustained national or international acclaim that would garner unsolicited - and uncompensated 
- media coverage. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted seven additional articles, six of which were published after the 
petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The beneficiary must establish his eligibility at the 
time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Kafighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The 
remaining article is entitled "Offshore Development Center in Chennai - Hexaware, Valtech Tie Up" and 
discusses a contract for the petitioner to set up an offshore development center for the French firm, Valtech. 
The beneficiary is pictured in a photograph and is briefly mentioned in the article which was published in the 
February 27, 2002 online edition of the Busine.~.~ Line. As stated above, there is no evidence in the record to 
demonstrate that Business Line is a professional, major trade publication or other major media. Accordingly, the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
EAC 02 200 52232 
Page 4 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the$eld. 
The director correctly determined that the beneficiary did not meet this criterion. The record contains ten 
recommendation letters from ten professionals in the beneficiary's field or related areas of specialization. Nine 
of the letters are written by individuals who have worked with the beneficiary or have known him for several 
years. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they 
cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that 
the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has 
worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, recommendation letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition cany less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Most of the letters discuss the beneficiarv's role in the growth of the Indian offshore software services industry. .., 
is Director and Senior Vice President of Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., where the beneficiary 
worke previously. Director Murty credits the beneficiary with "help[ing] set up the very first high speed d 
mote offshore software development between India and a US company (between 
in 1992). This pion d a very important role in establishing the 
foundation of the Indian IT services phenomenon.' Vice President of Birlasoft, Inc., states that he 
has known the beneficiary professionally and personally for more than 12 years. He explains that the 
beneficiary "was instrumental in helping place the Indian offshore software services industry on the global map. . -. 
. . . In a way this o ened the way for several US companies to get high quality and low cost software services 
from India." *ounder and Chairman of LifetecNet, Inc. explains that he has worked with the 
petitioner and known him for six years and is an advisor to the petitoner.also claims that the 
beneficiary "helped to pioneer remote offshore information technolo development business models and 
activities between India, Europe and the US in as early as 1992.' -Vice President of information 
Technology Association of America (ITAA) does not state how he knows the beneficiary, but further explains 
that the beneficiary "pioneered the remote development delivery model for computer software services at 
Satyam. He implemented the model through seven joint ventures that he personally directed for Fortune 500 
clients such as General Electric, TRW and Computer Associates.' also notes that the offshore model 
did not exist 15 years ago and opines that "[ilt took pioneers lik lm envision the opportunities and 
implement the vision in the form of unique and exciting international joint ventures." 
The record contains no evidence to corroborate the claims made by the letters. For example, there are no 
materials documenting the beneficiary's purportedly "pioneering" development of the offshore IT model in the 
early 1990s. While the letters indicate that the beneficiary is well respected among his colleagues for his 
professional accomplishments, they do not establish that his contributions were of major significance to his field 
in a manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. Consequently, the beneficiary does not meet this 
criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the ,field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The record contains printouts of articles written by the beneficiary from the website of Computers Today. The 
record indicates that the beneficiary oversaw the marketing of this publication during his prior position as a 
EAC 02 200 52232 
Page 5 
manager for Living Media India, Ltd. in the early 1980s. The beneficiary's articles are dated between 1999 and 
2001 and analyze various aspects of the international IT market and how it affects the industry in India. The 
record contains no evidence that Computers Todq is a professional, major trade publication. Regardless, the 
beneficiary's publication of just three articles in the course of a 20-year career in the IT field does not reflect the 
requisite sustained national or international acclaim and the beneficiary consequently does not meet this 
criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that huve a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary met this criterion through his former role at Satyam and his present 
position as CEO for the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the recommendation letters previously discussed 
under the fifth criterion as evidence under this criterion as well. As previously mentioned, these 
recommendation letters carry little weight because they are all written by colleagues and close associates of the 
beneficiary or were solicited to support his immi ration petition. Accordingly, we discuss the letters as they 
relate to other evidence in the record. Director and Senior Vice President of Satyam, confirms that 
the beneficiary "played a very strategic and key role in the growth of the Indian offshore software development 
ventures while at Satyam. Several of the letters describe the beneficiary as a "senior executive" at Satyam. Jeff 
Lande offers a few more details explaining that "Satyam only had 16 employees when [the beneficiary] joined 
the firm in 1989 as its Marketing Manager. By the time he left the firm less than 12 years later, Satyam had 
become one of the 'Big 5' IT companies in India, with over 10,000 employees, a stellar client list and 
tremendous success on the stock market." 
Two short articles from online publications are the only other evidence regarding the beneficiary's role at 
Satyam. An article entitled was published in the March 3 1,2001 edition of 
Business Line states that while at Satyam, the beneficiary "handled business developmen 
and corporate strategy at various stages of his tenure." The article quotes Satyam Chairman 
as stating that "Mr Rusi has been with us for over 11 years and has been a valued 
management team." The second article is entitled "Rusi Brij appointed CEO of Aptech's software business" 
and was published in the April 19,2001 edition ofADNet India. The article states that the beneficiary "played a 
key role in the reorganization of Satyam Computers to reset the corporate agenda and organizational priorities. 
He was also instrumental in acquiring some of Satyam's largest customers. He led Satyam's joint ventures and 
served as the Chairman of its joint venture with GE Industrial System and TRW." 
Although the recommendation letters and the online articles indicate that the beneficiary played a leading or 
critical role for Satyam, the record contains insufficient information to demonstrate that Satyam has a 
distinguished reputation. The record contains no evidence to support the claim that Satyam is one of the top five 
IT companies in India. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a printout of an online article from 
Conzputerworld that mentions Satyam but was published after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be 
considered. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
EAC 02 200 52232 
Page 6 
103.2(b)(12), Mutter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion 
by virtue of his former role at Satyam. 
However, the record is sufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion through his current 
position with Hexaware (the petitioner). Many of the recommendation letters affirm that the beneficiary is the 
petitioner's CEO and briefly state that he forges joint ventures between Hexaware and European and U.S. 
Fortune 500 companies. Media articles corroborate the beneficiary's role at Hexaware. The aforementioned 
article from ZDNet India announces the appointment of the beneficiary as the CEO of Aptech Limited (Aptech), 
a company that later merged with Hexaware, and quotes Aptech's chairman as stating that the beneficiary "will 
be based in New Jersey, USA and will oversee the operations of Aptech's software business from there." An 
article entitled "Hexaware sees 40 pc growth," published in the August 22, 2001 edition of the online 
publication Business Line's E-world discusses the merger of Aptech and Hexaware and states that the 
beneficiary will head the merged company. The article in Business India previously discussed under the third 
criterion affirms that the beneficiary is Hexaware's CEO and quotes him extensively. This evidence is sufficient 
to establish that the beneficiary performs a leading role for Hexaware. 
The Business India article also discusses Hexaware's reputation. According to the article, the company was 
"assessed at SEI-CMM Level 5, the highest quality accreditation" and lists several of the company's 
accomplishments, including being the largest provider of PeopleSoft (an enterprise resource planning package) 
in India and "a $25-million deal to set up a worldwide development center in India for Valtech, an international 
e-business consultancy group headquartered in France. . . . a $12 million assignment for Citibank in Germany 
spread over four years, a $20-million deal over five years with Air Canada, and a $15-million project from the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) department of the US Treasury." Two of these deals are confirmed by other 
sources. A printout from the PeopleSoft website states that the company "is partnering with software services 
firm, Hexaware, to set up an offshore customer services center in Bangalore . . . . The plan is to invest $30-$40 
million over three years to develop the center . . . . Hexaware will be responsible for ownership, operations, 
people and management." The Valtech contract is also reported in the Business Line article submitted in 
response to the WE and previously discussed under the third criterion. Although it also contains information 
relevant to this criterion, the article from the Wall Street Reporter previously discussed under the third criterion 
is of little weight because the publisher's notice explicitly states that the magazine "relies upon information 
received from the companies and individuals, which although believed to be reliable cannot be guaranteed as to 
completeness or accuracy." In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted several other articles regarding the 
beneficiary and Hexaware that were published after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be 
considered. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12), Matter of 
Katigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Nonetheless, the pre-existing evidence submitted with the petition is sufficient to 
demonstrate that Hexaware has a distinguished reputation in India. Accordingly, the beneficiary meets this 
criterion by virtue of his position as CEO of Hexaware. 
(ix) Evidence thut the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relution to others in the field. 
The record contains the beneficiary's 2001 W-2 form stating that his gross income was $84,732 for that year. A 
contract between the beneficiary and Aptech Worldwide, Inc. (which subsequently merged with the petitioner) 
is dated February 27, 2001 and signed by the Director of Aptech, but not by the beneficiary. The contract states 
that the beneficiary will earn a base salary of $250,000. The petitioner also submits a printout from the New 
Jersey Department of Labor website listing the level two wage of "chief executives" as $132,891, although the 
EAC 02 200 52232 
Page 7 
relevant comparison in this case is the salaries of chief executives at the very top of the petitioner's field, not 
merely the prevailing wage of all chief executives. Counsel claims that these documents establish the 
beneficiary's eligbility under this criterion because the base salary listed on his contract did not include bonuses 
based on the company's performance and that "if all goes as anticipated, [the beneficiary's] annual 
compensation by the year 2004 should reach $500,000." Counsel explains on page 11 of his initial brief that the 
beneficiary joined Aptech in August, 2001 and so his W-2 form for that year only reflected one third of his new 
salary, but the record contains no evidence of when the beneficiary began worlung for Aptech. The regulation 
requires documentation that the alien "has commanded" a high salary and does not allow consideration of 
proposed, but not yet fully documented income. Moreover, a visa petition may not be approved based on 
speculation of future eligbility or after the beneficiary becomes eligble under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In this 
case, the only documentation of the beneficiary's income shows his compensation to be significantly below the 
prevailing wage for chief executives in his area as submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the beneficiary 
does not meet this criterion. 
Finally, we note counsel's concern on appeal that an underlying basis of the director's decision was the 
"conclusion that off-shore IT outsourcing is not a 'good thing' for the United States." The director did not 
discuss the statutory requirement that the alien's entry into the United States "substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States" in accordance with Section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(A)(iii), or 
even suggest that the beneficiary's field would not benefit the United States. Counsel's concern is misplaced 
and we do not reach the issue here because the beneficiary meets only one regulatory criterion and is 
consequently ineligble for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his field. The petitioner bears this 
substantial burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. The petitioner in this case has not 
sustained that burden. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary performs a leading role for the petitioner, a 
distinguished Indian IT company. Yet the record does not establish that the beneficiary was an alien of 
extraordinary ability in business at the time of filing. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.