dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science And Engineering

MATTER OF Q-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 27, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wireless communications company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § I 153(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 Acting 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 the Beneficiary 
meets at least three of the 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 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 Q-T-, Inc. 
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 demonstri}te 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 field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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. USC/S, 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 o.fChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANAL YSlS 
The Beneficiary is a staff systems test engineer who is currently employed by the Petitioner in 
California. As the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has r~ceived 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Beneficiary met the following two criteria: original contributions under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Although the record 
does not support the Director's determination regarding the original contributions criterion 1, we find 
t_he Petitioner has fulfilled three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that the Beneficiary commands high 
earnings in relation to others in his field satisfying the high salary criterion. In addition, the 
Petitioner presented evidence reflecting that the Beneficiary served on patent review boards within 
the company meeting the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Moreover, the record 
1 The Director's decision does not identify which contributions she considered original, nor does she explain why she 
· found them to be of major significance. 
2 
.
Matter of Q-T-. Inc. 
• 
contains evidence showing the Beneficiary's critical performance in his position for the Petitioner 
fulfilling the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's eligibility for at least three regulatory criteria, and we 
will evaluate the tot~lity of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether it has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or 
international acclaim and 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 field through extensive 
documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and 
weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he 
has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
According to the Beneficiary's curriculum vitae, he obtained his bachelor of science degree in 
computer science and engineering from in [ndia. [n addition , he received a 
master of science degree in computer science and engineering from the 
The Beneficiary has been employed by the Petitioner since 2007; first as a systems 
software design architect staff software systems engineer and then as a staff systems test engineer. 
As mentioned above, the Beneficiary has served on the Petitioner's patent review board, has 
received a high salary from the company, and has performed in a critical role. While these 
achievements demonstrate success within the petitioning company, the record does not sufficiently 
document that they have been extensively recognized by the broader field, or that the Beneficiary 
has otherwise garnered sustained national or international acclaim. As discussed below, the 
submitted documentation does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's achievements are reflective of 
a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H. R. Rep. No. IO 1-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding the Beneficiary's service as a judge, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian. '596 F. 3d at 1121-22. As indicated above, the record 
reflects that the Beneficiary served on the Petitioner's patent review board. For instance, 
senior director of technology, stated that he "witnessed [the Beneficiary] 
demonstrate the ability to judge the intellectual property draft proposals from inventors across the 
company." Moreover, patent counsel, explained that "we require anyone invited 
to be part of our [panel review board] to provide us with the highest levels of adjudication of new 
ideas presented to the Board based on the dollar amourit we will spend for that patent." 
While the Petitioner's reference letters confirm the Beneficiary's service on the internal review 
panel, they do not provide specific, detailed information, such as the extent of his experience or the 
3 
.
Matter of Q-T-, Inc. 
number of patents he reviewed. Overall, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 's 
judging experience is indicative of the required sustained national or international ac~laim. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner , for example , did not show that the Beneficiary's 
expertise and patent review capabilities are recognized by the overall field rather than limited to 
acknowledgment within the company . Without evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, 
the record does not show that the Beneficiary's judging places him in that small percentage at the 
very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . · 
As indicated above, the Beneficiary has performed in a critical role for the Petitioner , contributing to 
its successes . For instance, vice president of engineering , stated that the 
Beneficiary ' s "work is instrumental in the annual launch of hundreds of millions of devices 
globally" and "this is worth several billion dollars in revenue ." However , the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's employment in this role is reflective of, or has resulted in, 
· widespread acclaim from his field or that he is considered to be at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has held 
any other leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations, 
nor does it show that his role for the Petitioner is representative of sustained national or international 
acclaim or a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act; H.R. Rep. 
No. at 59. 
In addition, although the Petitioner pays the Beneficiary a high salary in relation to others in the 
field, it did not show that his earnings, together with the record as a whole, demonstrate national or 
international acclaim·. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . The Petitioner 
seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at 
the top of their respective fields. Further, USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard . Mauer qf Price, 
20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc . Comm ' r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is 
no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the very top of his field . 
Beyond the three criteria that the Beneficiary satisfied , we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below , we find that the evidence neither satisfies the requirements of any 
further evidentiary criteria nor contributes to an overall finding that the Beneficiary has sustained 
national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
As it relates to published material, the record contains screenshots relating to press coverage of the 
Petitioner and announcements of new products. For example , the Petitioner submitted screenshots 
from regarding "the speed and power of 
network with flagship smartphones powered by modems ." This 
screenshot, as well as the other screenshots from various websites, never mentions the Beneficiary . 
. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary has received any press or media coverage 
4 
.
Matter of Q-T-, Inc. 
that would contribute to a finding that he has sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
for this highly restrictive classification or that is indicative of a level of success consistent with being 
among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. " See section 
203(b)(I ){A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . 
In regards to original contributions of major significance, the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary's work resulted in 82 granted patents for the company with over 230 patents pending 
approval. Patents may recognize the originality of inventions or ideas but do not necessarily 
establish them as contributions of major significance. While the patents show the importance of the 
Beneficiary's role to the Petitioner, the record does not demonstrate the substantial impact or 
influence to the overall field. Moreover, the Petitioner provided screenshots from reflecting 
that the Beneficiary's patents were published from 2013 to 2017. The Petitioner, however, has not 
established that this publication record is consistent with the Beneficiary being among the small 
percentage at the top of the field or having a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's patents reflect the required 
sustained national or international accl.aim. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act. The commentary 
for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act provides that the 
"intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in 
this regulation requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" 
for lesser classifications . 56 Fed. Reg. 30703 , 30704 (July 5, I 991 ). · 
Moreover, as creating novel ideas and inventions is part of the Beneficiary's occupation, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of his work is an important indicator to determine the 
impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained . For example, numerous, abundant independent citations of the Beneficiary ' s work may 
provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that others have been influenced by his 
work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian , 
596 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand , few o~ no citations to the Beneficiary's work may indicate 
that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. Here, the Petitioner argued that the 
Beneficiary's patents were cumulatively cited over 373 times. Further, the screenshots from 
reflect that the Beneficiary's most highly cited patent ("System and Method for Configuring an 
Interior of a Vehicle Based on Preferences Provided with Multiple Mobile Computing Devices 
Within the Vehicle ") had 33 citations , while 181 of his patents had no citations . Although the 
citation to the Beneficiary's patents shows some interest from others in the field, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that such citations , considered both individually and collectively, establish a level of 
interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
his field . See section 203(b)(1 ){A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3) . 
Further, while citations are not the only way to gauge the importance or recogmt10n of an 
individual's work , the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work has been 
considered of major significance and garnered wide acclaim in the field. The Petitioner presented 
5 
.
Matter of Q-T-, Inc. 
recommendation letters on behalf of the Beneficiary that praised his work but did not establish the 
significance of his contributions to the overall field.2 For instance, although 
vice president of claimed that "it is clearly evident that [the Beneficiary] holds 
international acclaim for his novel and globally unique contributions to several contemporary 
technologies of today and the near future," he did not provide specific, detailed information 
supporting his opinion . While offered examples of the Beneficiary's patents he did not 
show how they are considered by the greater field as majorly significant or that he has garnered 
attention at a level showing sustained national or international acclaim or placing him among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of Q-T-. Inc., ID# 1757909 (AAO Nov . 27, 2018) 
2 Although we discuss a sampling of his recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6