dismissed EB-1A Case: Cloud Computing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10296240 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 07, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior product manager in the field of cloud computing, seeks classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those 
who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the record 
established that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary criteria, it did not demonstrate his sustained 
national or international acclaim or that he is one of the very few at the top of his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and evidence and asserts his eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in 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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in ce1iain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C. 20l3);Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to original contributions, leading or critical role, and 
high salary. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for the criteria 
related to membership and to judging. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges the Director's 
conclusion that he meets the criteria related to original contributions, leading or critical role, and high 
salary, but also contends that he has established eligibility for the membership criterion. 1 After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner meets the criteria related to high 
salary and leading or critical role. However, contrary to the Director's finding, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not shown that he satisfies the criteria related to original contributions. Further, we 
agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner does not meet the membership criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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 claims to meet this criterion as he is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). The record contains an e-mail notification and a letter from IEEE 
establishing that the Petitioner is a senior member of that organization. It also includes the IEEE 2016 
Annual Repmi and 2018 IEEE Constitution and Bylaws demonstrating that this organization is in the 
Petitioner's field of endeavor. 
1 The Petitioner does not contestthe Director's conclusion that he has not satisfied the judging crite1ion. Accordingly we 
deem the issue waived and will not address it in our analysis. 
2 
However, the Petitioner must also show that in order to obtain senior membership, he was judged by 
recognized national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field 
of cloud computing. 2 To establish this, the Petitioner provides the IEEE senior member requirements 
and a document titled "IEEE Admission and Advancement Review Panel (AARP) Meeting Schedule" 
describing the selection process. The IEEE senior membership requirements state that a candidate for 
senior membership should be "an engineer, scientist, educator, technical executive originator" in the 
fields of engineering, computer sciences and in formation tech no logy ,physical sciences, biological and 
medical sciences, mathematics, and/or technical communications, education, management, law and 
policy. In addition, candidates must "have been in professional practice for at least ten years" and 
"have shown significant performance over a period of at least five of those years." The IEEE 
requirements document advises that "[ m Jany prospective applicants make the mistake of assuming 
that "significant performance" requires special awards, patents, or other extremely sophisticated 
technical accomplishments, but this is not the case" as '"[ s ]ubstantial job responsibilities such as team 
leader, task supervisor ... all are indications of significant performance." The IEEE senior membership 
requirements do not indicate that the IEEE requires outstanding achievements of its senior members 
as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field. 
Similarly, the AARP meeting schedule document does not state criteria by which the AARP selects 
IEEE senior members. Instead, the document identifies the locations for AARP meetings, states that 
the meeting should be presided over by the AARP Chair and/or Vice Chair, and provides that 
applicants should submit their application, resume, and required reference forms atleastten days prior 
to the AARP meeting. The record lacks other evidence demonstrating that IEEE requires outstanding 
achievements of its senior members as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in 
the field. Absent materials showing this, the record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner 
satisfies this criterion. Accordingly, we agree with the Director in this matter. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
As mentioned, we conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. The Director concluded that the Petitioner fulfilled 
this criterion but did not identify the original contributions made by the Petitioner or the evidence on 
which he relied to make this finding. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout 1he 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions- First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (indicating that the level of membership afforded to the 
alien must show that in order to obtain that level of membership, the alien was judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought.) 
3 
The Petitioner asserts that his development of the I I software an;..;;:d;....;:a=n:cJ...I ____ __., 
.__ _______ _. tool forD satisfies this criterion. With respe,....c_t_t_o_t_h_e~l----------1 
software, the Petitioner provides letters, a PowerPoint presentation titled I _ _ 
' and press releases and news articles about the software. 3 The 
..,.1-et-te_r_s----,-in-th:-e_r_e_c_o_rd-,--d:-e-m-on-st_ra_t~e the Petitioner's involvement in the deverpmer of the I I 
I !software. For example] l princ~stems architect at asserts that the 
Petitioner "founded the I l software" aL_J and explains how the Petitioner's wmk 
has impacted I Is ability to provide services to its customers. I IVice President of 
Products a~._ __________ __.l 4 states that the Petitioner "has proved essential to some of 
the most important technological innovations our company has made including thel 117 
[ I' and explains that the technology has reduced costs for~'s customers. Howev'erQ 
I I does not specifically articulate how cost saving forl ~s customers reflects the major 
significance of either the Petitioner's role in the development of the technology or the technology itself 
in the field of cloud computing. 
Thus, whild land I I explain how the Petitioner's development of the tool has been 
of major significance tol and to its customers, they do not specifically articulate how this 
development is of major significance to the field of cloud computing as a whole. Letters that 
specifically aiiiculate how the alien's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact 
on subsequent work add value. Letters that lack specifics do not add value and are not considered to 
be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 5 Without detailed specific 
examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's contributions to the development of thd I 
are of major significance in the field, these letters are insufficient to establish that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
The PowerPoint presentation in the record, while authored by the Petitioner, describes his role in 
identifying potential clients for thel I tool and business opportunities forl I Here 
the Petitioner does not explain or submit evidence to establish how identifying clients is an original 
contribution in the field of cloud computing. Finally, we note that while press releases and media 
indicate the importance and implementation ofthel I tool in the Petitioner's field, they 
do not identify the Petitioner, attribute the software to him, or otherwise reflect the major significance 
of the Petitioner's role in its development. 
Regarding thd I tool, the Petitioner submits letters of recommendation, PowerPoint presentations, 
technical documentation, and news articles to show that the0 tool has been implemented by other 
companies. The PowerPoint presentations authored by the Petitioner detail the step-by-step 
development of thel I tool and identify him as one of three team members responsible for the 
management o
1 
the pf°duct. This documentation is sufficient to establish the Petitioner's role in 
developing the tool and the news articles and letters of recommendation about the tool 
demonstrate that it constitutes an original contribution. 
3 While we address only a sarouJe nftbe Jett, here, we ha vereviewedand considered each one in the record. 
4 
The record reflects tha~~--------~ 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions- First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3dat 134-135 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
4 
However, the record does not demonstrate the tool's major significance in the field of cloud 
computing. The letters of recommendation describe its importance of the0 too 1 to and impact on 
each author's employer. For example,! I notes that the Petitioner "is credited for initiating 
and delivering a number of key strategic initiatives such a'-L----r--------,,-- ______ __J 
I r and describes its importance tol I SiTilarlyr ~--------< . ctor of sales at 
I l describes his company's selection o tool, noting that ~~ solution really 
shines among other solutions in the industry" and that this tool is leading "to sigQificant sav~ngs" for I 
his organization. While this evidence demonstrates the importance of this tool tol bnd t 
I lit is insufficient to show the major significance of theD tool in the field. 
Regarding the news articles, they show that a law firm and a state university now utilize theOtool. 
However, the Petitioner does not explain or provide evidence showing how a law firm and university 
are representative of the field of cloud computing such that their use demonstrates its widespread use 
in that field. Without information showing how the D tool has widely impacted or been 
implemented in the field of cloud computing as a whole, these letters do not establish that the I I 
tool is an original contribution of major significance in the field of cloud computing. 6 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion and we will withdraw the 
Director's finding in this matter. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner asse1is that he meets this criterion through his development of theOtool discussed 
above. Here the record includes the PowerPoint presentations describing the duties he performed in 
so doing and the press releases and letters demonstra1ng thy its development has been critical for 
I I The Petitioner also submits documentation abou to establish its distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfies 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 record provides an employment certification from his employer establishing his base salary and 
comparable salary documentation for seniorproductmanagers from Glassdoor, Pay Scale, and the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. This evidence demonstrates thatthe Petitioner's base salary is high relative 
to that of other senior product managers. Accordingly we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
For the above stated reasons, and contrary to the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has 
not submitted documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Thus, while the 
Petitioner asse1is on appeal that the record demonstrates his sustained national or international acclaim 
and that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor, we need not reach this 
6 Id. 
5 
issue. We will reserve it as the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 7 Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in 
the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. USCIS 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 not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No.101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, l 990);see also section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also MatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 
n.7(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
6