dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Systems Analyst

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 09 042 5 1762 
JAN 1 3 2010 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETlTIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
@p(,(jb GI~ 
t Perry Rhew 
If/ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on April 21,2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualifl for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the receipt of a 
major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 documentat ion, 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 24, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a computer systems analyst. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) 
indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifl as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in 
terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary 
ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has 
submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzj?cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his membership in the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner "is a 
member of an organization in the field which requires outstanding achievements of some of their 
members." The petitioner submitted a website page &om IEEE indicating that the petitioner is an 
Associate Member. The petitioner also submitted information regarding membership requirements 
from IEEE for a Senior Member Grade. However, the record does not reflect, nor does the petitioner 
claim, that the petitioner is a Senior Member Grade. Rather, the record reflects that the petitioner 
holds Associate Member status in IEEE. 
According IEEE's website', the following are requirements for select levels of membership: 
1. Associate Member grade is designed for technical and non-technical 
applicants who do not meet the qualifications for Member grade, but who 
would benefit through membership and partnership in the IEEE, and for those 
who are progressing, through continuing education and work experience, 
towards qualifications for Member grade. 
Member grade is limited to those who have satisfied IEEE-specified 
educational requirements andlor who have demonstrated professional 
competence in IEEE-designated fields of interest. For admission or transfer to 
the grade of Member, a candidate shall be either: 
' See http://www.ieee.or~/web/membership/qualifications~qualifications.html#Associate, accessed on November 19, 
2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 4 
a. An individual who shall have received a three-to-five year 
university-level or higher degree (i) fkom an accredited 
institution or program and (ii) in an IEEE-designated field; 
b. 
 An individual who shall have received a three-to-five year 
university-level or higher degree f?om an accredited institution 
or program and who has at least three years of professional work 
experience engaged in teaching, creating, developing, practicing 
or managing in IEEE-designated fields; or 
c. 
 An individual who, through at least six years of professional 
work experience, has demonstrated competence in teaching, 
creating, developing, practicing or managing within IEEE- 
designated fields. 
The grade of Senior Member is the highest for which application may be 
made and shall require experience reflecting professional maturity. For 
admission or transfer to the grade of Senior Member, a candidate shall be an 
engineer, scientist, educator, technical executive, or originator in IEEE- 
designated fields. 
The candidate shall have been in professional practice for at least ten years 
and shall have shown significant performance over a period of at least five of 
those years, such performance including one or more of the following: 
a. 
 Substantial responsibility or achievement in one or more of 
IEEE-designated fields; or 
b. 
 Publication of papers, books, or inventions in one or more of 
IEEE-designated fields; or 
c. 
 Technical direction or management of important work with 
evidence of accomplishment in one or more of IEEE-designated 
fields; or 
d. 
 Recognized contributions to the welfare of the professions 
encompassed by one or more of the IEEE-designated fields; or 
e. 
 Development or fhtherance of important courses in one or more 
of the IEEE-designated fields at an institution in the REP list; or 
f 
 Contributions equivalent to those of (a) to (e) in areas related to 
IEEE-designated fields, provided these contributions serve to 
advance progress substantially in IEEE-designated fields. 
Page 5 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satis@ this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reput at ion. 
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his Associate Member status in IEEE is based on 
outstanding achievement as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient>c, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major significance in the field. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his contributions at 
 and 
The petitioner submitted a letter from fi at 
[The petitioner] is one of a handll of Computer Systems Analysts in the U.S. who can 
work with GXS AI. GXS AI is the only computer translator in the world that features 
both native electronic data interchange (EDI) and native XML in a single user interface 
and management console. 
The GXS AI project at Coca-Cola involved the development of a software system by [the 
petitioner] and hs team of analysts at Coca-Cola that could essentially convert any 
computer program written in any language into a single, understandable standard, readable 
by the Coca-Cola Enterprises computer system. Thls was essential to Coca-Cola 
Enterprises as it is an international company operating in many different countries. It 
needed a software system that could convert all type of financial standards written in any 
computer language into one standard or into a different standard. 
letter. 
While the letters describe the details of the petitioner's work for Coca-Cola Enterprises, the record lacks 
evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly influenced 
or impacted his field beyond his immediate employer. The letter does not provide an evidence of the 
petitioner's original contribution of major significance in his field. For instance, while Y 
notes that petitioner has "developed and is in the process of refining and testing an original 
breakthrough so fiware system at Coca-Cola Enterprises unique to Coca-Cola Enterprises and unique 
from any otherGXS A1 system in the world," he fails to demonstrate that it is actually in use at Coca- 
Cola must less throughout the petitioner's field as a whole. Accordingly, while he may have developed 
an original software system for Coca-Cola, he has not shown any impact or contribution beyond Coca- 
Cola. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
those with whom he has worked and demonstrated his benefit to Coca-Cola, he has failed to 
demonstrate his impact beyond his immediate employer. There is no evidence demonstrating that he 
has made original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not 
indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other computer systems analysts nationally or 
internationally, or that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 
highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of 
major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peij4ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his position at 
 working 
at - In the previously mentioned letter fiom 
 he stated: 
[The petitioner] plays a leading role at - [The petitioner] plays 
a keylcritical role on the ED1 project at Coca-Cola which is a Canada migration 
project fiom legacy system to SAP system by using GXS A1 working on UNIX 
environment. 
[The petitioner] is instrumental to the development and support of the ED1 processes 
at Coca-Cola. ED1 processes is conversion of ED1 ANSIX12 standard to SAP IDOC 
and also converting SAP IDOC to ED1 ANSIX12 for both Inbound and Outbound 
process. [The petitioner] is one of only a handful of Computer Systems Analysts in 
the world that could work on this project because of his experience and expertise in 
ED1 and GXS AI. He is also highly experienced and received good feedback fiom 
earlier projects. Also he is meeting the challenging time tasks without fail. ED1 and 
GXS A1 can convert different formatslstandards of data such as ED1 ANSIX12, 
EDIFACT, IML, SAP IDOCS and flat files etc. across the world. ED1 and GXS A1 
are programming languages/applications which very few Systems Analysts in the 
U.S. know due to the complexity of the languages. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this regulatory 
criterion. We note that the above letters are all from individuals who have worked or interacted with 
the petitioner. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's role in various 
projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. The statutory 
requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of 
recognition beyond the alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts in not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCI S 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence that one would expect of an individual who has sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of the field. 
While the letters praise the petitioner for his expertise, the documentation, however, does not 
establish that his 
 is leading or critical to these companies as a whole. The petitioner failed to 
submit any evidence substantiating 
 claim that the petitioner is one of only a handful of 
computer systems analysts that could work on the project. The petitioner failed to establish, for 
instance, that his roles directly led to the success and accomplishments at any of the companies. 
Further, the petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing his 
position in relation to that of the other employees in similar positions at any of these companies. 
There is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's roles differentiated him from the other 
computer systems analysts, including other members of Coca-Cola's "team of analysts" as well as those 
in Coca-Cola's senior management. In this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does 
not establish that he was responsible for the success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence that he received a salary from 
 of 
approximately $1 12,000 for 2007 and 2008. The petitioner also submitted information fi-om the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook (2008-2009 edition) indicating that the median 
annual earnings for computer systems analysts in May 2006 was $69,760. Furthermore, the highest 10 
percent earned more than $106,820. Based on the submitted documentation, the petitioner has 
established that he has commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field. Therefore, we 
withdraw the director's finding regarding this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.