dismissed EB-1A Case: Energy Efficiency

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 16, 2024 In Re: 35163329 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an integration architect, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
energy efficiency. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not receive 
a one-time achievement or satisfy at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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. 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 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not show his receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not meet 
any of the six claimed alternate regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains his qualification for three categories of evidence. 1 For the reasons discussed 
below, the Petitioner did not demonstrate he meets at least three evidentiary criteria. 
The Petitioner argues that he fulfills the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field," based on four recommendation letters. USCIS 
determines whether the person has made original contributions in the field. 2 USCIS then determines 
whether the original contributions are of major significance to the field. 3 Examples of relevant 
evidence include, but are not limited to: published materials about the significance of the person's 
original work; testimonials, letters, and affidavits about the persons original work; documentation that 
the person's original work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field; and patents 
or licenses deriving from the person's work or evidence of commercial use of the person's work. 4 
Although the letters praise the Petitioner, the letters do not demonstrate that his contributions resulted 
in major significance in the field. Rather, the letters limit the relevance of the Petitioner's contributions 
to his employers. For instance, K-C-S- discusses the Petitioner's "most recent work atl Iwhere 
he was instrumental in designing and developing BEN (Business Event Notification) framework," and 
"[t]his has resulted in annual saving of over a million USD. Similarly, R-L- states that the Petitioner's 
role is super critical to D ... where he was instrumental in designing, developing and delivering 
1 Any ground of ineligibility that is not raised on appeal is waived. See Matter of O-R-E-, 28 T&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 
2021) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
2 
products .... " Here, the letters do not establish the significance of his contributions beyond __ 
or show how those contributions have been considered to be majorly significant in 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 as a whole). 
Likewise, A-V- stated that he has "been greatly impressed with [the Petitioner's] most recent work at 
______ where [he] was instrumental in rolling out new software to entire fleet of 2500+ 
ATM's with enhanced feature and experience to customer," and "[t]his integration helped in 
monitoring the currency value in real time which saved millions of dollars to bank in options." Again, 
the letter does not discuss how the Petitioner's involvement in rolling out new software somehow 
impacted or influenced the overall field rather than limited to his employer, ______ 
Finally, S-P- indicated that the Petitioner "has contributed to the growth ofl Iand has provided 
our clients with great insights by delivering solutions, white papers, and biogs." Once again, the letter 
reflects the Petitioner's contributions to his employer rather than establishing how those contributions 
have been majorly significant in the greater field. 
Here, the letters briefly indicate the importance of the Petitioner's contributions to his employers 
without showing the impact or influence in the overall field in a major way. While the letters briefly 
indicate how the Petitioner has affected his employers, they do not further elaborate and explain how 
his employer projects translated into contributions of major significance in the field. 5 
Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the person's 
contribution may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original contributions of 
major significance, particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed 
significance. 6 Submitted letters should specifically describe the person's contribution and its 
significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of the writer's knowledge and expertise. 7 
In this case, the letters lack specific, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish he satisfies the original contributions criterion. Although the Petitioner 
also argues eligibility for the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and 
the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach these additional grounds 
because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three under 8 C.F.R. 
5 See generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (analysis under this criterion focuses on whether the person's 
original work constitutes major, significant contributions in the field). 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
7 Id. 
3 
§ 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 8 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (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 11), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal 1), 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")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or 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 the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
8 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
4