dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-C-D-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 3, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer systems engineer, 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)(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 Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, either a 
one-time achievement or at least three of ten alternate criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director "misinterpret[ ed] the law and disregarded relevant 
facts." 
Upon de nova 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 G-C-D-L-
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 the 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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. USCIS, 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. 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only the judging criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a judge for the "Computer and 
Innovation Competition" organized by the I I I I of I I Philippines. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
fulfilled the judging criterion. 
The Petitioner maintains that she has a one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that 
she also satisfies six of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has received a one-time achievement or fulfills the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time 
achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as 
major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
2 
Matter of G-C-D-L-
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash 
prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress 
that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of the top 
awards. 
The Petitioner presented a "Hall of Fame Awardee" certificate from the "Provincial Directorl I 
~---___.I' in recognition of her computer support to faculty and students. In addition, she submitted 
an "Award for Innovation in Computer System Technology, Management, Planning and 
Implementation" from I I The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, intemational[ly] recognized award." 
The Petitioner did not present evidence, for example, demonstrating that her two awards are widely 
reported by international media, are recognized by the general public, or gamer attention comparable 
to other major, globally recognized awards similar to the Nobel Prize. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that she meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate her prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 2 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a Certificate of Appreciation from 
~---------,----,------' "for being an Outstanding Quality Engineer," a Certificate of 
Achievement from Control Accuracy," and two Certificates of Achievement from 
the~-~-------~-------' for completing a workshops on "Effective Problem­
Solving Techniques" and "Software Engineering." In addition, she provided a Certificate of 
Excellence from I ~ for her work involving "Comout~r and Media 
Ministry," a "Hall of Fame Awardee" certificate from the "Provincial Director,I ) l" 
and an "Award for Innovation in Computer System Technology, Management, Planning and 
Implementation" from~---------------..,......... The record, however, does not 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
3 
Matter of G-C-D-L-
include supporting evidence demonstrating that these awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The Petitioner has not established therefore 
that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of 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 asserts that she meets the membership criterion through obtaining "Cisco Career 
Certification" from .__ ______ ___, This certification represents the Petitioner's completion of 
computer network training rather than membership in an association. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she acquired "membership" with I I based on her outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. In addition, the Petitioner 
presented a certificate stating that she was "received into full membership of Calvary Church," but she 
has not shown that her membership in this organization required outstanding achievements in 
computer systems engineering, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Finally, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter and membership card indicating that she became a "Society Affiliate" of 
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 2019. This membership, however, post­
dates the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner has not offered information or evidence demonstrating that 
her affiliate membership in the IEEE meets the requirements of this regulatory criterion. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted three letters from her former employers. The 
Director considered this documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made contributions that were original 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 the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner contends that she provided letters from experts discussing her contributions in computer 
systems engineering. As discussed below, these letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, 
nor does the record include adequate corroborating documentation, to demonstrate the nature of 
specific "original contributions" that the Petitioner has made to the field that have been considered to 
be of major significance. 
For example,__ ______ _. chief financial officer o~ I an information technology 
(IT) service provider, stated that the Petitioner "helped us develop a software system as a Research 
4 
Matter of G-C-D-L-
Assistant in Computer Science Department at our branch office. On that project, I was impressed by 
her initiative and her thirst for knowledge. She also showed strong analytical and problem solving 
skills." The record, however, does not include sufficient information or evidence demonstrating that 
the Petitioner's work on this software system has affected the field in a substantial way or otherwise 
constitutes a contribution of major significance in her field. 
In addition,! I general manager ofO, indicated that the Petitioner was "a great asset to 
our company and her contributions to our company is [sic] still deeply appreciated to this date. She 
led the product designs, quality assurance, and pilot runs of RFID [ radio-frequency identification] 
contactless devices. She also managed our computer network." The Petitioner, however, has not 
offered sufficient evidence showing that her work has had a meaningful impact to the overall field 
beyond I I The language of this regulatory criterion requires that the Petitioner's original 
contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting her employer. 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). 
Furthermore, I I senior human resources officer for~-----------~ stated 
only that the Petitioner "was employed as a[ n] Engineering Assistant in our company from 2 
September 1997 to 23 December 1999" and "left us on her own accord." I ldoes not identify 
the Petitioner's original contributions or explain how they are of major significance in the field of 
computer systems engineering. 
Here, the letters from the Petitioner's employers do not reflect detailed information explaining how 
her original contributions are of major significance in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how 
a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and her impact on subsequent work 
add value. 3 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 4 
Without sufficient evidence demonstrating that her work constitutes original scientific contributions 
of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner presented a certificate from I I University 
Computer Engineering Society for participating in a "seminar on Computer Viruses." The language 
of this criterion, however, specifically requires display of the Petitioner's work at "artistic exhibitions 
or showcases" ( emphasis added). Here, the evidence does not demonstrate that the work on display 
at this seminar was "artistic" in nature. 5 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that 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). 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
5 
Matter of G-C-D-L-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she has performed in a leading or critical role for I I .___ ___ __. I 11 I and I ~ 
evidence under this cnten
1
n, thl P&,(e submitted Certificates of Achievement from c=Jand L_J, 
and letters of support from and For example, a letter froml I general manager 
and Head of the IT department for stated: "[The Petitioner] worked as a Network Engineer. ... 
She maintained our network systems without glitches and kept the network secured. . . . She always 
looked for ways to improve and innovate existing topologies to handle growing needs." 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding a 
critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 7 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her positiorus as a qla!it] assurance engineer for D 
a network engineer forD and a systems engineer for D and reflect her leading or critical 
role for these organizations overall. As it relates to a leading role, she did not provide evidence to 
establish where her positions fit w( thin the overll hierarchy of these organizations. Further, although 
the letters from] I and~---~discuss the Petitioner's IT projects, they do not show 
that her positions were leading or critical for their companies overall. In addition, the aforementioned 
letters and Certificates of Achievement do not indicate that the Petitioner's roles were leading 
compared t-~---------~'s managers or department heads, nor did they indicate that her 
work was of significant importance for these organizations' success or standing so as to demonstrate 
a critical role. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organizations or establishments to 
have a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 8 The 
Petitioner, however, did not offer evidence demonstrating that~ I and D have a 
distinguished reputation. For the above reasons, the Petitionerid not demonstrate that she fulfills 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner presented an October 2000 tax statement from the Inland Revenue Authority of 
Singapore reflecting income of $19,762. The record, however, does not include wage statistics or 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10-11. 
6 
Matter of G-C-D-L-
other evidence showing that the Petitioner's earnings were high relative to other computer systems 
engmeers. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she 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 acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance and recognition of her work are indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that they are consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-C-D-L-, ID# 4199525 (AAO Sept. 3, 2019) 
7