dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Engineering

MATTER OF A-K-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 8, 2016 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER· 
The Petitioner, a computer and system engineer, seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary 
ability" in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S. C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner ·seeks 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 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or satisfaction of at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement, asserting that he meets the criteria listed under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v), (viii) and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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, 
Matter of A-K-C-
(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 has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 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 his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he 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. 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 Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) proper 
application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 
131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of 
Chawathe, 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 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not asserted or shown that he is the recipient of a· qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5_(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has filed and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts he 
meets or for which he has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-C-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the associations of which he is a member "do have strict criteria 
about membership but not something like judged by experts yet," and that it is "highly unlikely" that 
there is "an association related to Information Technology where the membership is judged by some 
experts like some other fields." The Petitioner is a member of the 
His membership in these associations does not meet the plain language requirements of the criterion. 
"is a member-driven organization, chartered with promoting the use of best practices for 
providing security assurance within Cloud Computing, and providing education on the uses of Cloud 
Computing to help secure all other forms of computing." Individuals are eligible to "receive a 
complimentary individual membership based on a minimum level of participation," if they 
have "an interest in cloud computing and expertise to help make it more secure." "is the 
community of choice for international cybersecurity security professionals dedicated to advancing 
individual growth, managing technology risk and protecting critical information and infrastructure." 
membership "is open to individuals who by education or experience give evidence of 
competence in an designated field," encompassing the field of computer science and 
information technology. offers a number of different membership grades, including two above 
the member grade. The Petitioner's membership confirmation does not specify a higher grade than 
"member." is "a professional society whose sole purpose is to promote the 
common business and technology interests of its members." The Petitioner has not submitted any 
documentation showing that these associations require their members to have "outstanding 
achievements" or that admission is 'judged by recognized national or international experts." 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that these associations are the "most reputed" and "world 
renowned" in the field. An association, however, may be distinguished for reasons other than their 
membership requirements.2 At issue, according to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), is whether the associations require outstanding achievements of their members. 
The Petitioner asserts there are no qualifying associations in his field and requests that we disregard 
the plain language of the criterion and examine the submissions "from all the different perspectives." 
The Petitioner has not provided any legal authority under which we may ignore the plan language of 
the criterion when examining the relevant materials in the record. Instead, in our adjudication of 
appeals, we are bound by the applicable statute and regulations. Moreover, the Petitioner has not 
2 The Petitioner supports his assertions with material from the associations themselves. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-
5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *I, 6-7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) 
(concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's 
status as major media). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-C-
corroborated that his field lacks associations that require "outstanding achievements of their 
members."3 Going on record without support is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Even 
if the Petitioner had shown that certain criteria do not readily apply to his occupation such that he 
could rely on comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(4), the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that associations that do not require outstanding achievements of their members are 
comparable to those that do. Notably, membership in professional associations, without regard to 
the membership requirements of those associations, is a factor for exceptional ability, a lesser 
classification described at section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 8 C.F .R § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). The Petitioner 
has not established that these types of memberships should also be a consideration for the higher 
classification he seeks. · 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. Specifically, he has not demonstrated 
his 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. He has also not shown that he may rely on comparable 
evidence or that his memberships are comparable to those contemplated by the plain language 
requirements of this criterion, 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his patent application entitled meets 
this criterion. Specifically, he noted that the filing of the patent application shows his invention is 
original and his employer's use of his design proves its major significance in the field. To meet this 
criterion, a petitioner's contributions must be both original and of major significance in the field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" are not 
superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003)). A 
petitioner's contributions must be original, such that he is the first person or one of the first people to 
have done the work in the field, and must establish that his contributions are of major significance in 
the field, such that his work significantly advanced the field as a whole. Regardless of the field, the 
plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of 
an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
3 As discussed, the Petitioner documented that has higher levels of membership. We need not examine those 
membership requirements, however, as the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he has been admitted at these higher 
levels. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-C-
While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the filing of a patent application alone demonstrates that 
the invention is original, it is the that makes that 
determination, not the applicant.4 Regardless, at issue in this matter is whether the innovation is a 
contribution of major significance. A patent application, and even a granted patent, does not answer 
that question. Patents are available to those who invent or discover "any new and useful process, 
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 
35 U.S.C. § 101. 
Although the Petitioner's patent applications for and 
described original innovations, the filing of the applications does not confirm that 
the inventions are contributions of major significance in the field, such that they significantly 
advanced the field as a whole. Rather, the evidence, including reference letters, shows that the 
Petitioner's work has impacted his employer and its clients, but is not indicative of a wider 
influence. Petroleum Engineering Solution Manager, 
indicated that the Petitioner "developed [an] infrastructure solution" that "gave 
clients globally a great deal of confidence to convert" 
from their physical servers to a virtual platform. noted that the Petitioner "has invented 
a highly available and resilient license services solution while working at 
which has been "deployed at and "is currently being 
evaluated to be potentially rolled out commercially to the clients worldwide." said 
that the Petitioner has "demonstrated a great deal of motivation and delivered most innovative and 
cost effective infrastructure solutions" for his employer, 
a software engineer, provided that the Petitioner "has developed 
systems configurations/processes on the task of managing product licenses which have led to a 
patent submission." stated that the Petitioner's work "has been of tremendous help to 
[the I user community, which has stabilized the licenses availability [sic] used by engineering 
and commercializing groups in the commercial release of products, a very robust solution." 
. Information Technology (IT) Manager, said that 
the Petitioner's "most recent high value work was related to create an innovative and reliable license 
services for the based oil and gas applications which solves the major application downtime 
issues." These reference letters from colleagues show that the Petitioner's work has had an impact 
on his employer and its clients, but are insufficient to demonstrate an impact on the field of computer 
science and technology information as a whole. As noted, this criterion requires the Petitioner to 
establish impact beyond his employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
134-35. 
The record also includes other reference letters that praised the Petitioner's ability and skills. 
.__----~-
Service Integration Leader, India, explained that he worked with the 
4 According to website, applications for patents are examined to determine if the applicants are entitled to 
patents under the law and patents are granted when applicants are so entitled. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-C-
Petitioner at provided that the Petitioner "has tremendous 
technical knowledge in supporting large complex Unix based Servers" and "was the key technical 
person supporting and managing Unix infrastructure for the 
India's premier network and of India." 
Senior Manager, Residency Practice-Southeast Asia, , also worked 
with the Petitioner at He indicated that the Petitioner was "the most 
sought after Customer Engineer by many clients, because of his 
expert knowledge, outstanding customer support skills, ... and superior technical skills." 
experienced in IT and IT consulting, confirmed that he previously worked with 
the Petitioner. wrote that the Petitioner has "extraordinary knowledge and expertise 
in Information Security & Information governance field" and he "brings an extensive IT design, 
network ~ecurity experience which is very critical in today's modem ecommerce age where 
information/data security is of enormous value." While affirmed that "there is an 
extreme shortage of individuals with subject matter expertise in the area of Information security, 
Information governance worldwide but specifically in the United States," the issue of whether there 
is a shortage of available workers with the Petitioner's skills falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor. § 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). 
Senior Director, described the Petitioner as having 
"multi-talented skills in different flavors of Unix (ranging from Mag[n]um Unix to HP Unix to SVR 
4.2) and for really complex issues that nobody could solve, he was the go to person, 'the guru."' 
These reference letters establish that the Petitioner is skilled at his work, but do not 
provide specific 
examples that support a finding that he has made contributions of major significance in the field as a 
whole. 
Solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 5 Kazarian v. USC IS, 5 80 
F .3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
Jnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding a petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition does not create a presumption of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the foreign national's eligibility. See id. af 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS 
may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(citing Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
5 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
Petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-C-
(upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or 
associates that do not include details on contributions of major significance in the field). 
We have considered all the reference letters, including those not specifically mentioned. The 
reference letters do not establish that the Petitioner's accomplishments constituted contributions of 
major significance in the field. The record also lacks corroboration of the Petitioner's wider impact 
beyond his employers, such as, for example, media coverage of projects on which the Petitioner has 
worked. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not documented his original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. He does not 
satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner, through his role as a Senior IT Systems Engineer at 
"has played a critical role for and that enjoys a distinguished 
reputation." The evidence supports the Director's finding. Specifically, the record includes a 
number of reference letters from the Petitioner's supervisors and colleagues attesting to the critical 
nature of the Petitioner's work. stated that the Petitioner's work "helps avoid 
costly license serve downtime in terms of application unavailability and the very high value 
software." He also noted that the Petitioner is one of the "distinguished 
at and "play[s] key roles in assisting and supporting [the company's] clients achieve 
their primary goals of reducing exploration risk and optimizing hydrocarbon production and 
recover." Moreover, according to the Petitioner's employer, is "the major oilfield 
service company in the world" with a multitude of global clients. As such, the Petitioner has shown 
that he performs in a leading or critical role for his employer, He satisfies this criterion. 6 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The evidence, including information 
the Director added to the record, sufficiently supports this finding. The Petitioner provided his 
Internal Revenue (IRS) Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2013. The Director was satisfied 
that the income represented on that document was high in the field of computer science. 
B. Summary 
The Petitioner has been working as a computer and system engineer for a number of years. His 
employment has included working for a university and a multinational corporation. Based on the 
record, and for the reasons discussed above, however, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
6 Having found that the Petitioner's employment with meets this criterion, we need not consider his involvement 
with other entities that he asserts also meets this criterion. 
7 
Matter of A-K-C-
has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, documentation that satisfies at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria. In addition, having considered all the filings, we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility for the exclusive classification.7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a petition seeking extraordinary ability classification 
must show that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner 
included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the 
Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the 
submissions in the context of whether or not he has achieved: ( 1) 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," and (2) "that the [Petitioner] has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is 
that he has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth 
at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). 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 supports a finding that the Petitioner has not achieved the level of expertise required for 
the classification sought. 8 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-K-C-, ID# 14974 (AAO Jan. 8, 2016) 
7 Having found that the Petitioner has not met the antecedent regulatory requirements of presenting initial evidence set 
forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4), we need not consider his intent to continue to work as a computer and systems 
engineer in the United States, although we acknowledge that he is currently employed in his field and, on appeal, has 
expressed his intent to continue. 
8 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
8