dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 15.2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a memory storage company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A). This first preference classilication 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 Form 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker. concluding that the Beneficiary had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
she must meet at least three. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits a brief: stating that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability. and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter(?( P-5'-. Inc. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in ''that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top ofthe 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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 tield of endeavor. S'ee Kazarian v. USC'JS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fultilling 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 (O.D.C. 2013): Rijal v. USCJ,)'. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the ·'truth is to he 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence tor 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.·· Matter of'Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is a member of the technical statT at a company that develops and manufactures 
solid-state memory storage devices for large, enterprise data centers. Because the Beneficiary has 
not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award. she must 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met only two criteria. 
On appeaL the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets three additional criteria. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation (~{the alien's receipt o( lesser nationally or internafional~v recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the .field (?{endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i) 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on an award she received at 
the which is part of the 
on 
record reflects that the Beneficiary and her team received a bronze prize in '· 
2 
Specifically, the 
·one of 
.
Maller (?f P-S-. Inc. 
ten categories in the competition. The Petitioner noted that is part of the annual 
which is the "primary European 
forum for academics and industrial researchers working on topics relating to software science." The 
Petitioner also provided screenshots and general background information relating to the conference 
and explained that 35 teams from 16 countries participated in the competition. The Petitioner 
emphasizes the status of both the conference 
1 
and and it notes that the 
results were published in the conference proceedings. However, the record does not sufficiently 
establish that third place in the category of the software verification competition within 
this conference is a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the field 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by discounting the bronze award at the 
conference as academic in nature and finding that it accepts only students and early career 
professionals. Instead, the Petitioner attests that the conference accepts researchers and developers 
in the software verification community. Regardless, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or 
established the award's national or international recognition as an award for excellence in the field. 
nor does the record otherwise demonstrate such recognition. For the reasons discussed above. the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence olthe alien's participation. either individual~v or on a panel. as ajudKe ofthe work ol 
others in the same or an a!Iiedfield of.\pecificationfor which classification is souRht. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director found that the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others. The record 
indicated that she served as a reviewer of manuscripts for conferences and professional publications. 
such as the Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director's determination that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's oriKinal scient{fic, scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions o{major sif?nificance in thefield 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on her development of the 
software verification tools and It asserts that the Beneficiary's scholarly articles 
published in top journals. her high citations to her articles, and three recommendation letters 
demonstrate her eligibility. In order to satis{y the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). a 
petitioner must establish that not only has she made original contributions but that they have been of 
major significance in the tield. 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. 
1 
The Petitioner provided evidence that is ranked out of computer science conferences. 
3 
.
Mauer of P-S-. Inc. 
Regarding her scholarly articles, the Petitioner claims that the publication of her research in leading 
journals and conferences is evidence of its importance, but the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that her written work has been considered of major significance in the field. The 
Petitioner states that her published articles are in top ranked journals and conferences. First. we note 
that the regulations contain a separate criterion concerning the authorship of scholarly articles in 
professional publications. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Publications and presentations are not 
sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "'major 
significance'' in the field. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), af(d in part 
596 F.3d at 1115. There is no presumption that every published article is a contribution of major 
significance in the field: rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of her articles. Here, 
although the information provided shows that she was published in highly regarded journals and 
conferences. such evidence does not show how her articles . once published. have had maJor 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner offered documentation indicating that, at the time it filed the petition in 2017, the 
Beneficiary's written work had garnered approximately 138 citations. including her highest cited 
article with 29 citations. The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that that the Beneficiary published 
two papers on the sottware verification tool in 2015 that were within the top 0.1% of most­
cited papers in computer science in that year of publication. The evidence, however. does not 
adequately support this assertion. The record includes a 2005-2015 
chart showing baselines and percentiles for various research tields. 
including Computer Science. According to that chart, a 2015 computer science article that had 
garnered six citations would be among the top 0.1% of most-cited papers for that publication year. 
However, the chart itself was published in 2015, so it does not capture citations that occurred after 
2015. 2 While the Petitioner asserts that the Beneticiary's two 2015 articles fall into the 0.1% 
category because they have 8 and 10 citations, respectively, it has not provided sut1icicnt 
documentation to show whether her articles have garnered at least 6 citations in 2015. Similarly. 
while the Petitioner claims that a 2011 paper the Beneficiary wrote about is among the 
top 10% of most cited papers with 29 citations. it has not demonstrated how many of those citations 
fell within the time period of the report to support that asset1ion. Regardless, and more 
importantly. the Petitioner has not shown that the above levels of citation are indicative that the 
Beneficiary's software verification tools constitute contributions of major significance in the lield. 
On appeal. the Petitioner notes that she also provided recommendation letters regarding her 
contributions. Upon review of the three submitted letters, they discuss the Beneficiary's original 
contributions but do not provide sufficient evidence of her work's major significance in the tiel d. 
For example. professor of computer science at the 
explained that the Beneficiary developed a software verification and model checking 
tooL which helped her discover a design defect in the source codes of a protocol. He also 
noted that the Beneficiary developed a ''novel method for managing state space explosion in 
2 Put in another way, the chart indicates a 2015 article that had already garnered six citations during the year 2015 would 
be among the top 0.1% of most-cited papers. 
4 
.
Matter r~f P-S-. Inc. 
Although he describes her original contributions and the new developments she found, the letter 
does not sufficiently explain their major significance in the field. 
In addition, a letter from professor at the stated that the 
Beneficiary's "contribution to software verification involved developing tools that verify concurrent 
programs written in multiple programming languages all at once:· He further attested that he 
"personally uses as part of my own ·funded research, and instruct 
on as m my graduate research studies." Further, professor at the 
explained the Beneficiary's contribution as the leader and main developer of 
and stated "I also use in my research project of verifying Open Map programs." 
also noted that he is aware of the usage of at the ' 
collaboration with and the 
funded by the 
Although the authors indicate that the Petitioner's research has helped their own \vork and 
attest that others have also used they did not sufficiently show or describe how the research 
has widely impacted the field. so as to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. S'ee 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (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). 
Further, the letters highlight that conferences invited the Beneficiary to present her research findings 
and journals asked her to be a peer reviewer. For example, the letter from stated that the 
Beneficiary has ·'published her very exciting findings through leading academic journals and 
presented them at specialist conferences. and many journal publishers and conference organizers 
have sought her expertise in reviewing articles by peer scientists for publication." The letter from 
also asset1s that she published three papers on "which drew immediate 
attention from the software verification community, including myself.'' However, the authors do not 
sufficiently explain how the Beneficiary's conferences or peer reviews have impacted or int1uenced 
the field to establish original contributions of major significance. Participation in a conference 
demonstrates that her findings were shared with others. but being chosen to present in-and-of-itself 
does not indicate the major significance of her contribution. Here. the Petitioner has not shown that 
the Beneficiary's presentations or peer review rise to a level of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary and her team were awarded two grants from the 
In reviewing the grants, the Beneficiary was not listed as an 
investigator but rather as a team member. The Petitioner has not established that the grants were 
awarded based on. or otherwise reflective of: the 
major significance of the Beneficiary's past \vork. 
Nor does the record show that the Beneficiary's work on the grant projects themselves resulted in 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The phrase '·contributions of major significance'' connotes that an individual's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. As discussed above. the 
Petitioner has not shown through the Beneficiary's citation history or other evidence that her work. 
5 
.
Malter of P-S-. Inc. 
once published or presented , has been of major significanc e in the tield. Accordingly. the Petitioner 
did not establish that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship ol scholarly articles in the field. in pro(essiona/ or major 
trade publications or olher mt-U'or media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
As discussed above, the Beneficiary authored articles that were published m conferences and 
profess ional j oumals , such as the 2015 
Therefore , the Director found that the Beneficiary satisfied this criterion. and we agree 
with that determination. 
Evidence thai !he alien has commanded a hif;h salary or other siKnificantly hiKh remuneration 
.fiJr services. in re/alion to others in !he .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted an offer letter indicating that the Beneticiary earns $150,000 per year. and 
that she received 6,000 restricted stock units that will be vested in the future. As evidence that she 
commands a high salary compared to others in her field. the Petitioner presented document s from the 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and On appea L the Petitioner ack nowledges 
that the submitted salary data does not take into account stock option s, but cont ends that the record 
shows the Beneficiar y's high compensation in her tield based solely on her annual salary. 
The data relates to sen ior software engineers. reflecting that the median salary for this 
position is $106,720 per year nationally
, and indicating that the salary for this position is higher 
where the Petitioner is located , with a "Pay Difference"' of +34 % tor Cal ifornia. In 
addition, the Petitioner submitt ed a BLS survey for "Software Developers, Systems Software" that 
shows a national median annu al wage of $105,570 with those in the 75th percentile receiving an 
annual salary of $13 L670 and those in the 90th percentil e earning $159.850. 3 
Although the Beneficiary 's salary exceeds the median wage for each of these occupations, the 
submitted documentation does not adequately demonstrate that it constitutes a "high salary"" consiste nt 
with the language of this criterion . In addition . it appe ars that the above wage inform ation is for two 
di fie rent occupational catego ries and the Petition er has not sufficiently establish ed whic h. if either. 
provides an accurate basis for comparison with the Beneficiary"s position. Finall y. the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that her other remuneration, such as annual bonuses or her one- time gran t of stock 
options, constitute significantl y high remuneration as compa red to other individual s with a s imilar 
job position. 
B. Prior 0-l Nonimmigr ant Visa 
We note that the record ret1ects that the Beneficiar y previously receive d 0-1 statu s, a classification 
reserved for non immigrant s of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS has approved at least one 0 -1 
·
1 
This survey also indicates a higher rate of compensation for the position in the Petitioner's locality. 
Matter ()/P-S-, Inc. 
nonimmigrant visa petition tiled on behalf of the Beneficiary. the prior approval does not preclude 
USCJS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations. and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See. e.g .. Q Data Consul/in:.; Inc. v. !l'v'S. 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003 ); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice. 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999): Fe din Bmthers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at II 03. Furthermore. our authority over the USC IS service centers. the 
office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition. is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual. we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra \'. INS'. No. 98-2855. 2000 WL 
282785. at *2 (E.D. La. 2000) 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence that Beneficiary received a major. 
internationally recognized award 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 finding that the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. For the foregoing reasons. the Petitioner has not shown that the Reneticiary 
qualities for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller ofP-S- Inc .. ID# 876342 (AAO Fe h. 15. 20 18)