dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-W-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE II, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor, 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. 
§ 1!53(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, 
of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo 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 
.
Mauer of H-W-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirem ents. 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 catego ries 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 evidenc e requirements , we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record show s s ustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individu al is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first cou nted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determ ination) ; see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); R[jal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 20 ll ). 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 qua lity," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance , probative value, and credibility, both individuall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evide~ce, to determin e whether the fact to be proven i s 
probably true." Matter ofCh awathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an assistant professor in the computer science department at in 
Indiana . Becau se he has not indicat ed or establi shed that he has received a major , 
internationally recognized award , he must satisfy at least three of the alt ernate regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Qirector found that the Petitioner met only 
two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles 
under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
On appeal , the Petitioner maintains that he meets an additional criterion , discusse d 
below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field (l specification for which classific ation is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record reflects that he reviewe d 
manuscripts and articles for professional publications, such as 
and served on technical committ ees at conferences, such as 2017 . As such, we agree 
with the Director's conclusion for this criterion. 
2 
.
Maner (~f H-W-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artlsllc. athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director indicated that the Petitioner's published articles have garnered 876 citations. In 
addition, the Director found that "while [the Petitioner's] research demonstrates original 
contributions in the field , the number of citation s of his work, when compared with that of the 
leading scientists in the field, whose publications ... have gamer~d citations numbered well in the 
thousands , does not substantiate contributions of major significance in the field." On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that "[s]uch a rigid, narrow, arbitrarily and simplistic interpretation of this criterion 
leads to a deeply flawed evaluation that cannot begin to accurately assess whether [his] contributions 
are majorly significant." 
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 the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. Moreover, we generally agree that the Director 's comparison of the 
Petitioner 's citations to that of other scientists or researchers in his field, as well as journal ranking s 
or impact factors, is not appropriate in determining whether he has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Rather, the Director's evaluation of the Petitioner 's citations to 
others in his field is more relevant in a final merits determination demonstrating his sustained 
national or international acclaim , that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the tield through extensive 
documentation . 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided evidence showing the citations of his published 
papers and conference presentations. Although the number of citations shows that his research has 
received attention from the field, his accompanying recommendation letters do not demonstrate that 
his work is considered original contributions of major significance in the field. While the authors 
indicated that they have cited to the Petitioner's papers in their own written work and referenced 
other papers that cited to his work , they did not demonstrate how his work is majorl y signiticant to 
the overall 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). 
For instance, the Petitioner co-authored a paper, 
that was oublished in the 
and presented at In the paper, the authors 
proposed an unsupervised indoor localization scheme that bypasses the need for war­
driving. An updated citation list shows that the paper has garnered 552 citations. However, the 
Petitioner submitted three recommendation letters that did not establish the overall impact or 
1 Although we discuss a sampling of the Petitioner's research papers and recomm endat ion letters , we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
.
Matter of H- W-
influence on the field. For example, associate professor at 
stated that he "also utilized [the Petitioner's] approach within my own research for 
a paper I published," and "[r]esearc hers that have implemented [the Petitioner 's] met hods include 
While claimed that he used the 
Petition er's work and is aware of another paper that cited to the work, his letter docs not demonstrate 
that rises to a level of major significance in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner co-authored another paper, 
that was published in the 
and present ed at ' 14. In this 
paper, the authors describe a system that exploit s s martphone sensors to estimate 
the direction in which a user is walking. While the paper has recei ved 100 citations, the Petitioner 
submits a recommendation letter from assoc iate professor at 
who indicated how it impacted his own work. Specifically, stated that "[t]hi s greater level 
of precision offered by [the Petitioner's] system was exactly what we needed to make our floor plan 
reconstruction system a success." In addition, referenced a paper that was presented at the 
Proceeding s of the that cited to the 
Petitioner 's paper. While claimed that has been widely implemented 
throughout the field of indoor localization , he did not sufficien tly support his assertions in his letter 
showing the impact of beyond his own work. 
Likewise , the Petitioner co-authored a paper entitled, 
that was published in the 
and presented at ' 15. Here, the authors describe 
relating to the leaking of information from a smartwatch. Although the pape r garnered 67 
citations , the recommendation letters discussing do not establish its major significance in 
the field. For example, . professor at the 
discussed the findings and methods of without demonstrating its impact or influence on the 
field. 
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 tield . Kazarian, 580 F.Jd at 1036, a.ff'd in par/ 596 F.3d at 11 15. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterat ed that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner 's] contributions in the field" were insuffi cient was "consi stent with the 
relevant regulatory language ." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover , USCIS need not accept primari ly 
conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S At/ y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
4 
.
Malter of H- W-
In addition , t he Petitioner argues that and have been "thoroughly 
discussed by major media publications." The reco rd contains twelve screenshots from various 
websites , such as and discussing the applica tions. 
The Petitioner, howe ver, did not provide evidence supportin g his assertions that the websites are 
major media. Although the Petitioner has shown that there has been some Internet coverage of his 
work , he did not establish that such reporting establishes that his contribu tions have been of maj or 
significance in the field. 
The record also contains evidence showing that the Petitioner is listed as one of the inven tors for the 
patent, "User-a uthentication gestures." The Petitioner argues that "[e]ven if his patent has not yet 
been license d, receiving a patent is a strong indica tion that [he] is a cutting-edge researcher who can 
detect and develop state -of-the-art advancements in the field," and he s ubm its a 
In general, a p atent recogn izes the origi nality of an 
invention or idea but does not necessarily establi sh that it is a contribution of major significance in 
the field . Here, the Petitioner did not show that his patent is considered by the field to be of me:~ or 
significance. We note that none of his recommendati on letters acknow ledge the Petitioner's patent, 
nor do they discu ss its application or use in the field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of show ing that he has made original 
contribution s ?f major signific ance in the field . 
Evidence of the alien' s authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in professi onal or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(v i). 
The Director determined that the Petition er satisfied this criterion . As discussed above, the 
Petition er authored ten scholarly articles that were published in professio nal journ als, such as 
Accordingl y, the Petitioner estab lished that he meets this 
criterion . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time ac hievemen t or 
document s that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
· final merits determination reference d in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheles s, we adv ise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggreg ate, concluding that it does not support a tinding that 
the Peti tioner has established the level of expert ise required for the c lassificat ion sought. The 
Petition er seeks a highl y restrictive visa classificatio n, intended for individuals alread y at the top of 
their respective fields, rather than for individual s progre ssing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet th e "extraor dinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Asso c. Comm'r. 1994). In the case here, 
the Petiti oner has not shown that his paper and conference reviews are indicative of the requi red 
jointly leverages camera-enabled glasses and smartphones to recognize individuals in the visual surrounding. 
5 
Matter of H- W-
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Further, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his authorship and citation history is consistent with 
being among the small percentage at the top of his tield or having a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Moreover, the 
record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has garnered national or 
international acclaim in the field. See section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-W-, ID# 1266880 (AAO June 11, 2018) 
6