dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10750822 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in computer science. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
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)(l)(A) 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 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 certain 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. 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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicated employment as a principal platform engineer with I O , , I 
~ IN ew York. 1 Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determirled that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers for journals and at 
conferences. In addition, he authored scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets three additional criteria, discussed below. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record does not support a 
determirlation that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
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.2 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not indicate his current employer. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions ; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 
The Petitioner ar,ues that his academic-related awards from I l 
scholarships from I University, and employment awards froml land 
I I show eligibility for this criterion. Although he provided photographs of the academic 
awards from 0, the Petitioner did not support the record regarding his scholarships and employment 
awards. Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how receiving academic awards from a higher 
education institution reflects the significant nature of his work in the field. While he received the 
academic awards for his papers and researc
1, the(etitioner did not establish the impact or influence 
of his papers or research in the field beyond 3 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that he "served as a manuscript reviewer for a variety of 
professional journals and conference organizers where he evaluates the merits to papers prior to 
publication." As previously discussed, we have already considered the Petitioner's manuscript 
reviews under the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
establish how performing paper reviews for journals or at conferences rises to a level of major 
significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not show, for example, how he significantly impacted 
or influenced the field in a major way through his paper reviews beyond the individual journals and 
conferences. 
The Petitioner also argues that "[h ]is majorf original contributions have lead [sic] to prestiwous journal 
publications in Intelligent Data Analysis, I 2017 Conference,! Science and 
Technology and many others." Again, we considered the Petitioner's publication history under the 
scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that publication of articles in highly ranked journals or presentation of work at distinguished 
conferences automatically establishes original contributions of major significance. In addition, a 
publication that bears a high ranking or impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate; it 
does not show an author's influence or the impact ofresearch in the field or that every article published 
in a highly ranked journal or presented at a distinguished conference automatically indicates a 
contribution of major significance. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
Further, the Petitioner claims that "his papers are highly cited." The record reflects that the Petitioner 
submitted citatory evidence from Google Scholar showing that four of his papers received three, two, 
two, and one citation(s), respectively, with his remaining six papers garnering no citations. 
Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research 
or written work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the few citations to his work 
are commensurate with contributions of major significance. Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the 
significance or relevance of the citations to his articles or conference papers. For example, he did not 
demonstrate that these citations are unusually high in his field or how they compare to other articles 
that the field views as having been majorly significant. Although his citations indicate that some in 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 
(D.D.C. 2013) (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). 
3 
the field have referenced his work, the Petitioner did not establish that his citation numbers to his work 
meet the threshold of major significance. 4 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted seven recommendation letters that generally recount his research 
and findings and indicate their publications in journals or presentation at conferences. Although they 
reflect the novelty of his work, they do not sufficiently articulate how his research and findings have 
been considered of such importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level of major 
significance required by this criterion. For instance,! I professor ate=] indicated 
that he collaborated for three years with the Petitioner on a project funded by the National Science 
Foundation that "led to four publications, including one paper being nominated for a major conference 
award." 5 Here,I ldid not elaborate and explain the significance of the funding research in 
the field beyond publication and presentation. Again, publication or presentation alone is not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 
596 F.3d at 1115. 
Furthermore, the letters indicate the Petitioner's professional accomplishments while interning or 
working at various entities without showing the impact or influence in the field beyond his employers 
or institutions. For example, I O l senior program manager ofl I claimed that 
during the Petitioner's internship, he "greatly helped to build [a] protxpe for two patents" but did not 
discuss the effect, if any, the patents had in the field.I J CEO ofl I, stated 
that "as part of his Curricular Practical Training (CPT), he worked on graph databases, and built near­
real time monitorin s stem ... , which has been pushed to production." Here, the letter does not detail 
how his work at has been recognized in the overall field as a contribution of major 
significance. Similarly, , assistant professor atl I 
~---------------~ indicated that "[i]n our lab and classes, we study [the 
Petitioner's] approach on finf T impo~71 news articles . . . and have played an imporullt guiding 
role in my research in lab at ' Although the letter reflects application of the Petitioner's 
approach in a lab and classes at it does not demonstrate, for example, that the approach is 
widely studied or utilized throughout the field consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his research or work has had in the overall field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 6 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language 
do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting 
this criterion. 7 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The 
US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authmitative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
5 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
4 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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). 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that the alien is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 8 Regarding a 
critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that an alien contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 9 
The Petitioner indicates eligibility f~ criterion based on his role atD and submits a letter from 
I I former co-worker al__J 10 Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that he "built a variety 
of advanced computing platforms that reduced costs and increased revenues to such a high degree that 
the company was purchased byl I in 2018 for I I" However,! ldid not 
make the claim that the Petitioner's role and contributions toLJresulted inl Is purchase 
ofc=J 
Further,! I stated that the Petitioner "played a critical role" and indicated that he worked with 
the Petitioner for the "incubation team" as his delivery lead. I Is letter does not show that 
the Petitioner held a leadership position, nor did the Petitioner demonstrate where he placed in the 
hierarchy otc=J as a member of the "incubation team." The Petitioner, for example, did not compare 
his role to the other f ositiors within D As such, the Petitioner did not establish that he performed 
in a leading role for 
In addition, although! I described the Petitioner's varus Jrojects and indicated their resulfa, 
he did not elaborate and eXJ)lain how they were essential to s outcomes or activities. 11 For 
instance, whilel !stated that " t his a roach has cut down the operational cost by around 
90%," and "[t]his approach on usin reduced the deployment time from on
1 
day t 
I Ito only 30 minutes in~ __ __,," he did not articulate how they crucially impacted s 
functioning or were vital to its operation. 
Moreover.I !indicated various projects that were either put aside or never fully came to 
fruition. For example, "[a]lthough this project did not go [into] production, [the Petitioner] has built 
g Sec USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005. I, supra, at I 0. 
9 Id. 
' 0 The Petitioner argues that "[ a ]t page four of the Director's decision, it is stated that 'a letter from I I and an 
article published by I I.' could not be located. However, these documents were submitted to the [Director] in 
response to the ... notice of intent to deny." The record does not reflect that the Petitioner provided this document to the 
Director. 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
5 
a beta version quickly with a single-agent to showcase the idea to senior management and get their 
approval for the project," and "[t]his architecture would save some cost further, however, due to the 
amount of effort that would take to go serverless, it has been set aside for later in the road map." Here, 
the Petitioner did not show how projects that were never implemented influence~ Is business 
activities in a critical way. I I also claimed that the Petitioner "saved 156,000 USD, which 
corresponds to 90% of annual saving (2018) by our team." However,! I did not explain the 
importance or significance of the team's savings to C=1 s operation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role fore=) 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 12 The Petitioner claims eligibility for 
this criterion based on his salary withD as a principal platform engineer. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a screenshot from flcdatacenter.com regarding level 1 to 4 wages for computer programmers 
in the .__ ___ ~ ________ __.Region ofCalifornia." 13 According to the Petition
1
er's jolb 
offer letter, paystubs, and tax documentation previously submitted, both his address and s 
address were located in the New York area.14 Here, the Petitioner does not explain how wage data 
from California relates to New York. 15 
Moreover, the Petitioner compares the salaries of computer programmers to his salary as a principal 
platform engineer. He did not establish that he commands a high salary in relation to other principal 
platform engineers. Both precedent and case law support this application of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. 
App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salaiy information for those performing lesser duties is 
not a comparison to others in the field); Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 
( considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-
45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
In addition, Level 1 wage relates to entry level employees, while Level 4 wages relate to fully 
competent employees. 16 The Petitioner did not show that he commands a high salary in relation to 
other principal platf mm engineers rather than to the average salaries of fully competent computer 
programmers. 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
13 The Petitioner contends that "[a]t page four of the Director's decision, it is stated that 'the record lacks evidence 
comparing your earnings to others in the field. However, these documents were submitted to the [Director's] ... notice 
of intent to deny." The record does not reflect that the Petitioner provided this document to the Director. 
14 According to screenshots from I lsubmittedJ !entered an agreement to purchasec=] after the filing 
of the petition. 
15 Id. (instructing that the burden is on the petitioner to provide appropriate evidence and examples may include, but are 
not limited to, geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys and organizational justifications to pay above 
the compensation data). 
16 See https://www.flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf~ accessed on September 21, 
2020. 
6 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
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. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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, 1990); 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). 
Although the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts and authored scholarly articles, the record does not 
contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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