dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Intelligence

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: IIuN "3 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuanl: to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
&,-Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Verrr~ont 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who an: 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. 5 204.5(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. 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 as an alien with extraordinary ability as a business intelligence 
systems analyst and developer. The petitioner originally submitted his resume, copies of his diplomas, six 
recommendation letters, printouts from the websites of two companies for which he did consulting work, and 
information regarding his compensation. The director determined that the record indicated that the petitioner 
was knowledgeable and talented, but did not demonstrate that his accomplishments had earned the sustained 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel claims the director 
applied an incorrect legal standard and submits four additional support letters. Counsel's claims and the 
additional evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the substantive reasons for denial and we affirm the 
director's decision. 
We first address counsel's contention that the director applied an incorrect legal standard. In her discussion of 
the applicable statutory and regulatory standard, the director stated: 
Merely meeting three of the ten categories of evidence suggested by the regulation does not 
automatically establish the beneficiary's eligibility for the classification of "Alien of 
Extraordinary Ability." Determinations of eligibility are made on the basis of the quality and 
caliber of the evidence presented. 
Counsel claims that our office "has held that this statement is legally incorrect" and cites an unpublished AAO 
decision. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(c), designated and published decisions of the AAO are binding precedent 
on all Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) employees in the administration of the Act. However, 
unpublished decisions have no such precedential value. The case cited by counsel has not been published and 
consequently merits no deference as binding precedent. Nevertheless, we do not read the director's decision as 
imposing a standard outside of the statute and regulation. Rather, the director has correctly noted that evidence 
submitted in relation to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) must be evaluated on the extent to which the evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"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). 
Counsel's remaining contentions, the evidence submitted and the director's decision are addressed in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on u panel, as u judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted a letter 
Account Manager for the Kforce Professional Staffing Company ("Kforce"). The petitioner 
through which he obtained a position as a business intelligence (BI) analyst and 
developer consultant at Waste Management. Incorporated. In his original letter,statsd that the 
petitioner "voluntarily participated" to evaluate the work of other individuals in his field "through many - 
technical interviews" and "set up a methodology to assess others' previous design works." 
The director found no evidence that the petitioner had judged the work of others in his field "beyond that 
required by his current and previous employment." In an additional letter submitted on appeal, 
explains that his company asked the petitioner to judge the work of other BI systems analysis - 
professionals because he "is an internationally renowned Business Intelligence ~~iterns Analyst1Dt:veloper . . 
otes that the petitioner is not an employee of Kforce "therefore, he doesn't perform judging 
other "t pro esslonals as a part of his employment or required by his employment." 
s letter reflects his respect for the petitioner's expertise in the BI field, but it only establishes the fact 
once helped Kforce company interview other BI systems professionals. This single service - - .> 
for one company does not reflect the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with ext:raordinary 
ability. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence ofthe alien's original scientij?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related ~on~fribzltions of 
major signijicance in the field. 
The director correctly concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted six 
recommendation letters from professionals in his field or a related specialty. The director found the letters 
insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion in part because they did not indicate that 
the petitioner had "garnered sustained national or international acclaim . . . [and] recognition for his 
accomplishrnents beyond the circle of his personal and professional acquaintances." On appeal, counsel claims 
that the authors of the letters are "considered witnesses, and not the circle of his personal and professional 
acquaintances." 
The record contradicts counsel's assertions. The letters' authors have all worked with the petitioner or for the 
same divisions of companies where he was employed and are thus familiar with his work. 
Project Manager at Waste Management, Inc., interviewed, hired and a arentl supervises t e petitioner as a BI 
analystJdeveloper consultant for Waste Management, Inc. 
ha 
is a BI consultant for Waste 
Management, Inc. who works with the petitioner. 
Management, Inc. who apparently worked with the pe I loner or a east two months. 
consultant. 
Company interviewed, hired and supervised the petitioner as a BI 
is a BI Developer and Support Consultant for Managed Business Solutions, a 
by Hewlett-Packard. orked with the pelitioner and 
took over the support of systems developed by the petitioner after his departure from Hewlett-Packard. = 
as previously mentioned in the discussion under the fourth criterion, works for the staffing company that 
Inc. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from an "independent 
expert," Systems and Management at Seattle Pacific University. 
etter is based largely on his review of letters from the aforementioned individuals, 
through independent sources. Professor 
letter quotes extensively from the other letters and offers no additional substantive analysis of the 
pet~tioner's contributions to his field. 
While letters such as these provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishrnents, they 
cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demor~strate 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 carry less weight than preexisting evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel cites another 
unpublished AAO decision to support the claim that support letters from individuals associated with the 
petitioner "are not surprising where the petitioner is not a researcher who would have published a significant 
volume of work and is involved in a narrow field of expertise." We repeat that unpublished AAO decisions are 
not binding precedents. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.4(c). However, even if we accepted counsel's assertion, the record 
does not establish that the petitioner's field is exceedingly narrow or that original contributions of major 
significance to the field of BI systems analysis and development are not documented and recognized, for 
example, in trade publications, information technology journals or at professional conferences. Consequently, 
we review the support letters' claims while keeping in mind their limited probative value without additional 
evidence to corroborate the significance of the petitioner's contributions. 
of Hewlett-Packard states that the petitioner "developed a unique drill-through code for the 
engineenng community. . . . No other Business Intelligence software vendor in the market offered this 
functionality. It is totally unique, original and custom made by In his first letter, 
now supports the systems designed by the petitioner), confirms that the petitioner 
unique drill-through functionality" for the warrant Management System (WMS) project at Hewlett-Packard. 
In his second letter submitted on appeal, tates that this "[dlrill-across feature first became popular 
within the Hewlett-Packard Company t h ccess of WMS and was s read through different divisions 
of HP and finally it was adopted by BI software providers." yetoes not name any software 
companies that have adopted this feature and the record contains no corroborative evidence that the petitioner's 
"drill-through" code or feature had a major impact on, let alone was recognized by, the business intelligence 
systems field at large. 
manager of the Environmental Management Reporting project on which the petitioner 
Waste Management, Inc., states that the petitioner 
[Multidimensional Expressions] algorithm in B1 field. 1 strongly believe that 
resulted in an original technical and business contributions [sic] in the BI field." 
assessment of the petitioner's MDX work and also states that the 
Programming lnterface (API) that "resulted in an original business and technical contribution in BI field 
because, I strongly believe, it's the first Internet based B1 s stem which doesn't require the installation of 
traditional client side APls." In his first letter, describes the petitioner's MDX work as "a 
breakthrough algorithm in this field because MDX has no optimization tools and optimization ir~formation 
available in the market.also explains that the petitioner's XML analysis work "restdted in an 
original business and technical contribution in this field because users will be able [to] access the BI system 
without downloading any client side components.'' In his letter submitted on appeal, claims that 
the petitioner's "MDX Optimization Algorithm Design work resulted in a major accomplishment and an 
original contribution, which have [sic] been recognized as having advanced the field to a 
others in the field . . . because it helped the evolution of MDX language in the field of BI." 
claims that the petitioner's "XML based API design" is an original contribution to his field that "'has been 
recognized as having advanced the field to a greater degree than others in the field . . . ." Yet the record contains 
no independent evidence of this claimed recognition of the petitioner's work. 
In sum, the letters attest to the value of the petitioner's work to the projects in which he was involved at 
Hewlett-Packard and Waste Management, Inc. They do not establish that his work made original contributions 
of major significance to his field at large that reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has per$omed in a leading or critical role for organizations or estnb/ishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire 
organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a 
leading or critical role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must 
establish the reputation of that section independent of the organization itself. The petitioner submitted the 
previously discussed support letters and printouts from the websites of Hewlett-Packard and Waste 
Management, Inc. as evidence of his eligibility under this criterion. The director correctly determined that the 
letters did not establish the petitioner's eligibility. On appeal, counsel repeats claims made by the letters 
originally submitted and also refers to the additional letters submitted on appeal. While the letters explain the 
significance of the petitioner's contributions to specific projects for two companies where he worked as a 
consultant, they do not establish that he held a leading or critical role for the companies or the specific 
departments in which he worked. 
tates that the petitioner was hired as a business intelligence consultant for the Warranty 
project undertaken by the Enterprise Systems Group (ESG) at Hewlett-Packard. Although 
affinns that the petitioner "assumed a leading and critical role in the ro'ect," he does not state that 
the petitioner held a leading or critical role within the ESG. Rather, 
PI 
simply confinns that the 
valuable work on one component of a project undertaken y one rvision of Hewlett-Packard. 
describes the similarly limited role of the petitioner at Waste Management, Inc. - explains that the petitioner was hired as a "BI AnalysttDeveloper consultant" to work on the environmental 
management re 
m 
oject initiated by the Enterprise System Development Group at Waste Management, 
Inc. (WM). affirms that the petitioner "assumed a leading and critical role in this crucial and major 
project for WM," but does not state that he played a similarly significant role for the Enterprise System 
Development Group. The record indicates that the petitioner's work as a consultant was highly valued, but the 
evidence does not establish that the petitioner's role extended beyond the discrete projects on which he worked. 
In addition, the record contains no evidence that the Enterprise Systems Group at Hewlett-Packard or the 
Enterprise System Development Group at Waste Management, Inc. have distinguished reputations independent 
of the companies themselves. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commarzded a high salary or other sigrzijicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The director correctly concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. In his first 
states that the petitioner's services "are worth $65-$70 an hour or $130,000-$140,000 a year." 
references an attached "market pricing report" that ranks the petitioner "in the 99fi percentile salary range" and 
- - w 
claims that he therefore "commands a very high salary in relation to others in his field." However, thi,s report is 
based on the median salary for "a typical Data Warehouse Specialist in Houston, TX," a job which only requires 
a bachelor's degree and two years of experience. In this case the petitioner has a master's degree and had over 
two years of experience at the time his petition was filed. By referencing the median salary of professionals 
with lower qualifications, the report inflates the value of the petitioner's purported compensation. In fact, the 
of three other BI systems professionals who have writtei support letters for the petitioner: 
f Hewlett-Packard ($160,000); BI consultant ($160,000); and 
The petitioner's purported compensation of $130,000 to $140,000 is 
significantly higher than, the salaries of these BI professionals who appear to be at the top of their field. 
ins no primary evidence of the petitioner's actual salary or remuneration. A 
resident of Objectwin Technology, Incorp 
rn 
that his company 
ment negotiations, and we attest the wage mmands is $M.00 
he petitioner's servic command "$75-$85 n our 0,000-$170,000) a 
d services." Yet the record contains no proof of this petitioner's services "are worth $75-$85 an hour or $l.i0,000 - 
s that his services "are worth in a range of $150,000-$170.000 a year," yet 
confirm that the petitioner actually received compensation in that range. 
Slmply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
Page 7 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Accordingly, the petitioner dces not meet 
this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act 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 or her field. The petitioner bears this substantial 
burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner in this case has not sustained that 
burden. The evidence indicates that the petitioner is a talented business intelligence systems iinalyst and 
developer, but the record does not establish that he is an alien of extraordinary ability. Accordingly., the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.