dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF V-S-U-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 22,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks classification 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 )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides documentation and a brief: stating that he satisfies at least three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of V-S-U-
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 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 ineets 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 field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilfing 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 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a computer project manager for the 
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 ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met these two 
criteria: scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading or critical role under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that he meets three additional criteria: membership under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), original contributions under § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and high salary under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 1 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. 
1 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the criteria relating to awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), he does not continue to do so on appeal, nor does the record support 
a finding that he meets them. Accordingly, we will not further address these criteria in our decision. 
2 
.
Matter of V-S- U-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought. which require outstanding achievements qf 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 states that he is certified as a by the 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this 
criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievements as an 
essential condition for membership. 
Regarding the Petitioner indicates that he earned his certification based on a 15 year career in 
information technology, and that the credential has been cited as a top certification by credible and 
important organizations. The ' Handbook" provided by the 
Petitioner reflects that in order to be eligible for the credential, an applicant must have an 
educational background, project management experience, and project management education. 
Moreover, once an application is submitted and processed, an applicant has one year to pass an 
examination and, upon approval, the applicant has to maintain professional development units. 
These requirements are not indicative of outstanding achievements and are not judged by recognized 
national or international experts; instead, the applicant has to pass a multiple choice examination. 
Further, relates to a credential rather than membership in an association? Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's certification does not qualify for this criterion 
As it relates to the Petitioner claims that it is a professional association of highly skilled project 
managers and requires a level of success in the field. The issue for this criterion, however, is not the 
reputation or standing of the association but whether outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, are required for membership. The record contains 
bylaws that state "[m]embership in shall be open to any person interested in the declared 
purposes of the Institute .... " Further, the bylaws reflect four classes of membership: regular, 
retiree, student, and associate. Although the Petition,er did not establish his membership class, 
"[a]ny person who is interested in, or engaged in, the practice, teaching or other application of 
project management, including research concerning project management, may qualify as a Regular 
Member of the Institute." The bylaws indicate that persons seeking membership will be accepted 
upon "the submission, receipt, acceptance, and processing of the required application materials, 
dues, fees, and assessments," thereby demonstrating that outstanding achievements are not an 
essential element for admittance into Moreover, the bylaws do not show that membership is 
judged by recognized national or international experts as required by the regulation. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
2 As further evidence that relates to a credential, the Handbook" 
provides "information about the policies and procedures for obtaining and maintaining the credential." In addition, 
the handbook indicates that "the credential demonstrates to employers, clients and colleagues that a project 
manager possesses project management knowledge, experience, and skills to bring projects to successful completion." 
3 
.
Matter ofV-S-U-
Evidence of the alien's original scientf(ic. scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major signifzcance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Although he did not previous claim this criterion, the Petitioner contends on appeal that he meets it 
based on the authorship of his work. Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that his paper entitled, 
"Testing of Component-Based Software Systems" was selected for publication and presentation at 
the in 2001. Further, the Petitioner states 
that the conference "validated the significance of [his] work to the global Software Testing 
profession by selecting his paper to be presented at their annual conferences." 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. Participation in a conference demonstrates that his findings were 
shared with others and may be acknowledged as original based on their selection for presentation. 
However, the selection of the Petitioner's paper to be presented at the 
in-and-of-itself does not show the major significance of his 
contribution. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 
(9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that 
we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The record does not show that his presentation or paper has been frequently cited by other 
researchers or has otherwise significantly impacted the field. While the Petitioner claims that his 
paper "was cited numerous times by scholars," he only provides three papers that cite to his article. 
Those papers do not reflect that his article was singled out as particularly important. Rather, the 
Petitioner's article was used as background and for information purposes in the authors' papers. 
Here, the Petitioner has· not shown that his paper or presentation rises to a level of an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submits two recommendation letters from individuals who worked with 
the Petitioner at Although they indicate that the Petitioner's research and 
findings were distributed within they did not demonstrate that his work has 
influenced or impacted the field outside of the company. For instance, software architect 
for stated that the Petitioner's "successful results were widely distributed to technical 
staff and decision makers within through internal reports ... and a 
company-wide Research Newsletter." In addition, senior manager for an 
·undisclosed company, discussed three of the Petitioner's projects but did not indicate whether any of 
the findings were implemented in the field. Similarly, the Petitioner offers a letter from 
professor at the in India, who identified a 
project the Petitioner worked on in conjunction with for his master's degree 
but did not establish the effect it had on the field. 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 corroborate her 
impact in the field as a whole). 
4 
.
Matter of V-S-U-
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. 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. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') 
conclusion that the "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. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. I 756. Inc. v. The US. Att ~v 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
showing that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in pr<?fessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored an article that was published from the proceedings of a 
conference. Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we agree 
with that determination. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1:{ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director indicated that the Petitioner's position as a project manager with for the 
satisfied this criterion. The record supports the Director's 
determination, and the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
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). 
The Petitioner states on appeal that he has discovered new evidence that meets this criterion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner claims that his "real market value" at is $220,000 per year, and 
has a longstanding reputation of exploiting the US immigration guestworker [sic] program by 
hiring Indian IT nationals who they pay significantly less than the market wage .... " In addition, 
the Petitioner provides a "work order central" reflecting that charges $110 per hour 
(approximately $220,000 per year) for the Petitioner's services to other clients, such as the 
Further, the Petitioner submits documentation from indicating that he earns 
$93,492 per year and evidence from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the annual 
median wages for computer and information research scientists is $110,620, including $170,610 in 
the 90th percentile. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he commands a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field. Although he 
provides documentation showing what charges its client for his services, the Petitioner earns 
5 
.
Matter of V-S-U-
$93;492 per year. Here, the Petitioner does not command or earn the amount that charges its 
client for his services; and therefore, it cannot be interpreted as the Petitioner's annual salary. 
In addition, as indicated above, the Petitioner provides evidence from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics regarding salaries of computer and information research scientists. The Petitioner's 
position, however, with for the is a computer program manager. Here, the 
Petitioner did not compare his salary to other computer program managers. Similarly, the Petitioner 
submits a job offer letter from for the position as a senior software engineer reflecting a 
yearly salary of $219,986. He did not demonstrate that this salary is high in relation to other senior 
software engineers. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets 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 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 she qualifies for classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-S-U-, ID# 561213 (AAO Sept. 22, 2017)