dismissed EB-1A Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 17, 2023 In Re: 23740321 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a cybersecurity interaction designer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that he satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, 
and authorship of scholarly articles). 1 
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. 2 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner 
met the criteria relating to leading or critical role and high salary, but determined that he did not satisfy 
the awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that he meets the original contributions criterion. 3 After reviewing the 
evidence, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that he satisfies the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
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. 4 As 
evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted documentation relatin to his desi n ro • ects 
(Nimble Storage, VMware, Sysdig, and Google), founding of the .__~~-----~-----' 
collaborative agreement with the World Bank, and involvement with the'-------~ Political 
Studies.5 In addition, the Petitioner provided letters of support from colleagues in the field discussing 
1 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (indicating that USCIS officers 
should first "[a]ssess whether evidence meets regulatory criteria: Determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, which 
evidence submitted by a petitioner objectively meets the parameters of the regulatory description that applies to that type 
of evidence"). 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B) (stating that in the final merits determination, USCIS officers 
should evaluate all the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if a petitioner has 
established the required high level of expertise for this immigrant classification). 
3 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's determinations for the awards, membership, judging, and scholarly articles 
criteria. Accordingly, we deem these issues abandoned. See Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 
*9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal 
to the AAO). 
4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
5 In response to the Director's re uest for evidence the Petitioner stated that he was abandoning his claims regarding the 
World Bank, the~------------------~Political Studies "because we acknowledged 
that they were not strong enough for this criteri[on]." 
2 
his work, as well as online articles about products offered by his employers. 6 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 his appeal brief: the Petitioner asserts that he provided endorsement letters from authoritative 
witnesses discussing his contributions to his employers' products. These references discussed his 
design projects at ~------------------~ but their statements do not 
demonstrate the originality of his work and its major significance in the field. As discussed below, 
the reference letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate 
corroborating documentation, to show the nature of specific "original contributions" that the Petitioner 
has made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance. 
Regarding the Petitioner's work for I I Dr. G-I-, Professor of Computer Science atl 
University in Italy, asserted that the Petitioner developed the user experience for the I....____ ____, 
Platform security called 'l I He stated that the Petitioner's 
"contributions consisted of a set of 'dashboard templates' which allow security administrators and 
security analysts to gain visibility into sensitive data risk across their entire organization." While Dr. 
G-I- farther explained that these "data visualizations ... gave users an easier access to an advanced 
risk summary and a much more graphical data privacy investigation tool," the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that this work has affected the field in a substantial way or otherwise constitutes an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's projects for I I D-K-, the company's former Vice 
President of Product Operations, indicated that the Petitioner "delivered the ....I--------~ 
(NCV) creation user experience," "the multi-cloud NCV platform user experience," and an "artificial 
intelli ence AI -driven redictive anal tics visualization directly integrated with the acclaimed 
._________________ __.tool." D-K- also stated that the Petitioner provided user 
experience and graphical user interface (GUI) mockups of innovative features for public product 
releases, designed critical graphic guidelines and interactive visualizations in collaboration with 
product and engineering senior executives, and presented to C-level executives user experience 
prototypes and user experience product roadmaps for the company's product direction, but the 
Petitioner has not shown that his original work for I I has influenced the field of 
cybersecurity to the extent that it is of major significance in his field. 
In discussing the Petitioner's work forl IG-S-, the company's former Director of Product 
Management for Edge Computing and Internet of Things, asserted that the Petitioner lead the 
interaction design vision for Project Dimension (a joint effort with c=]Technologies), the 
development of the "interaction design between I I software configuration GUI and ~ 
hardware ordering GUI," and "the development of the interaction designs that would allow users to 
improve the cybersecurity posture of their regionalized Software Defined Data Center (SDDC)." 
While G-S- noted that the Petitioner's work was "significant for the company as a whole," the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his work for I lhas been considered important at a level 
consistent with original contributions of major significance in the field. 
6 These articles do not identify the Petitioner or discuss in detail the significance of his particular contributions. 
3 
With regard to the Petitioner's work forl IP-C-, the company's former Vice President of Proaduct 
stated that the Petitioner developed the user experience and user interface (UI) for its ._I------,.~-­
product "to ship all the 2019 and 2020 features, including the user experience and UI for the 
monitoring platform integration." P-C- also asserted that the Petitioner lead the design development 
of the Runtime Vulnerability Scanning UI, the regulatory compliance UI, and the cybersecurity 
activity audit UI, but the Petitioner has not shown that the aforementioned work has risen to the level 
of a contribution of major significance in the field of cybersecurity. 
As farther evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends on appeal that he has "offered 
numerous articles that mentioned my contributions developed during my employment withl I
I I' The record includes online articles, blogs, and press releases 
about his employers and their products. For example, the Petitioner submitted material from 
Searchstorage.techtarget.com, I lblog, Forbes.com/sites/moorinsights, Zdnet.com, 
Google.com, IvoBeerens.NL, SiliconAngle.com, Be-virtual.net, Thevirtuallyconnected.net, 
Diginomica.com, Businesstelegraph.co.uk, Insightaas.com, Ambidextrouspm.com, ArchitectingIT, 
Hpe.com, Mikeleahy.blog, Infrazxp.com, Globenewswire.com, Thenewstack.io, Venturebeat.com, 
Enterprisenetworkingplanet.com, Theregister.com, Techradar.com, Packetpushers.nr, Int
1
rma, 
Virtualizationreview.com, Containerjoumal.com, Managedmethods.com, Innovate.ie, com, 
Pmewswire.com, Commvault.com, Kasten.io, I lcom, Bloomberg.com/press-releases, 
Equinix.com/press-releases, Businesswire.com, Lenovo.com, Cloudmarketplace.oracle.com, 
IBM.com, Techzine.eu, Azuremarketplace.microsoft.com, Aws.amazon.com, Finance.yahoo.com, 
Techcrunch.com, Businessinsider.com, Cm.com, and Marketplace.redhat.com. 7 None of these 
articles mentions the Petitioner or explains how his specific original contributions to the products are 
majorly significant in the field. 8 Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that the level of attention 
received by his employers' products signifies that he has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field of cybersecurity. 
The Petitioner farther argues that his "contributions have been widely adopted and integrated" into his 
employers' products as well as those from Oracle, IBM, HPE, and Microsoft Azure. The Petitioner, 
however, has not demonstrated that his particular user experience and interface designs, which were a 
component of the aforementioned companies' product offerings, rise to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Courts have routinely affirmed our decisions 
concluding that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) "requires substantial influence beyond one's employers, 
clients, or customers." Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, 2019 WL 2330181, at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) 
7 The Petitioner also provided articles from Reuters.com, McKinsey.com, and Gaiiner.com, but these articles discuss 
general industry trends and not the Petitioner or the products with which he,....V1""'·a=s""'in"'"v"--'·o""-lv-'--·e'-'d"'".------------, 
8 For instance, the blog entry from Forbes.com/sites/moorinsights, entitled ._________________. 
.______ ____. does not identify the Petitioner or discuss in detail his particular user interface designs. The article 
concludes by stating: "We're anxious to see Hewlett Packard Enterprise evolve this product. It really does have amazing 
potential - potential that would give HPE the opportunity to stand alone among its peers." While the author describes the 
product as needing to "evolve," "an Intriguing Storage Service Offering," and having "potential," these characterizations 
are not necessarily indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. Nor does the record show if this online 
blog entry was published in Forbes magazine. Further, the evidence does not indicate whether the blog was produced by 
Forbes staff, as opposed to being an open-source site through which anyone can post an entry. For all of these reasons, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this blog constitutes an influential platform demonstrating the major significance 
of his contributions. 
4 
(upholding an agency decision that held "[a] patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of 
success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole."); see also Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 
F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022) (upholding agency decision that held evidence insufficient "because it 
did not show widespread replication of [the petitioner's invention]"). Here, the Petitioner has not 
shown that his original work has affected the cybersecurity industry at a level commensurate with 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
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. Accordingly, we reserve the final 
merits determination. 9 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. See Matter ofPrice, 
20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the 
statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. 
Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability designation 
is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 
2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very 
small percentage of prospective immigrants"); see also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), 
No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 
(upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian 
theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals 
fail to win this designation")). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is 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 sustained national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
9 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6