dismissed EB-1A Case: Energy / Power Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an energy and power 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. 
§ 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 although the Beneficiary satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, in 
which he must meet at least three, the Petitioner did not show his sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that the Beneficiary 
meets an additional criterion and has sustained the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of 
his field. 
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 V-, 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 demonstrate 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). 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 
The Petitioner employs the Beneficiary as a senior vice president of marketing and solution/product 
management inl I California. Because it has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary 
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 found that the 
Beneficiary fulfilled three of the initial evidentiary criteria, scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high salary under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The record reflects that the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in 
professional publications and performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a 
distinguished reputation. Accordingly, we agree with the Director's determination regarding the 
scholarly articles and leading or critical role criteria. However, for the reasons discussed later, we do 
not concur with the Director's finding as it relates to the high salary criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets an additional criterion, discussed below. 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
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). 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary "is a pioneer within smart grid and automation 
deployment who has changed the way the energy industry approaches electric power systems and; 
[sic] management of transmission and distribution grids" and references his patent, recommendation 
letters, citatory history, and business side of energy management. In order to satisfy the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has a beneficiary made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 1 For example, a petitioner 
may show that a beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
As it relates to the atent the Petitioner rovided evidence that the Beneficiar received a patent for 
'in 2010. In ~---------------------------------~ general, a patent recognizes the originality of an invention or idea but does not necessarily establish it 
as a contribution of major significance in the field. Moreover, the Petitioner provided recommendation 
letters mentioning the Beneficiary's patent but do not further elaborate or discuss the significance of 
the patent in the field. For instance, the letters stated that the beneficiary "owns a patent onl I 
'-----~~---;:::::====:::;---::----~---,,--~ d b and "has a patent 
protecting his work" d b. 2 Although the authors confirmed the Beneficiary's receipt of a 
patent, they did not explain how it has significantly impacted or influenced the field. 3 
Moreover the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary "has led the development of ._I ____ ___, 
rela s" Further the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary's "essential work on this~---------------~elay has transformed 
the global power systems industry." Although the Petitioner stresses the importance of I I the 
record reflects that only two of his recommendation letters referenced it. For example, I I 
indicated that the Beneficiary's "work on this rela transformed the power systems industry across the 
globe" and "has been one of the relays worldwide." Further,c=J 
I !stated that the .__ _____ ____.relay that completely transformed the industry by 
vastly increasing the security, power, and dependability it gave electric en ineers" and "revolutionized 
[his] work onl I power systems and on impror-'"' .......... _7-- __ _J tilization." However, the 
authors did not include specific information or detail how.__ __ _. has "transformed" the overall field 
rather than broad, unsupported statements. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "was also instrumental in the development and 
deployment of the international standard fo~ f" The Petitioner 
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 ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each letter contained in the record. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also 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). 
3 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
submitted the "Applications ofl !standard to Protection Schemes" (June 2013), as well as a 
screenshot from I I (June 2015) reflecting that th~ I standard "has been available for 
more than ten years and has created an environment that allows significant improvements in the 
protection, automation and control systems." Although the Petitioner documented the Beneficiary's 
involvement in a study committee to develop standards forl I it did not demonstrate that the 
guidelines have been majorly significant in the field. Moreover, the recommendation letters mention 
the Beneficiary's involvement with the study committee and document without providing detailed 
information showing how the guidelines have significantly influenced or impacted the field in a major 
way. For instance, "[the Beneficiary] was the Convener of thel !working Group related to the 
Applications for Protection Scheme based od I an international standard for electric power 
systems design and architecture" , "he created novel solutions for networks of 
substations based on the new standard .__ ________ _,, , and "he has authored 
technical guides for ... th ,.._ ______ __,Study Committee." While the letters confirm his role 
and involvement with the study committee, they do not show how the technical guide has been of 
major significance in the field. 
As discussed above, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact the Beneficiary's work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how an individual's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 4 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. 5 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The 
US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's written work has garnered 110 citations. As 
it relates to the cumulative citations, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that the 
Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on 
the Petitioner to identify the Beneficiary's original contributions and explain why they are of major 
significance. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's cumulative number of 
citations pinpoints to which authored articles or findings represents contributions of major significance 
in the field. Moreover, aggregate citation figures are reflective on an individual's overall publication 
record rather than isolating which research the field considers to be majorly significant. Publications 
and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. 
In the case here, a review of the citation record to his individual articles is a more appropriate analysis. 6 
The Petitioner provided evidence showing that the Beneficiary's four highest cited articles received 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 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). 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field. may 
4 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
33, 33, 27, and 26 citations, respectively. 7 However, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance 
or relevance of these numbers. For example, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that these citations are 
unusually high in the Beneficiary's field or how they compare to other articles that the field views as 
having been majorly significant. Although the Beneficiary's citations are indicative that his research 
has received attention from the field, the Petitioner did not establish that the citation numbers to his 
individual articles rise to the level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently identify the specific contributions the Beneficiary has made 
through his written work, nor has it shown that his citations for any of his published articles are 
commensurate with contributions of major significance. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "has performed exceptionally well on the business 
side of energy management," such as managing budgets, regaining lost market shares, and increasing 
sales. As discussed earlier, we found that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), a separate and distinct criterion. Consistent with the regulatory 
requirement that a beneficiary meet at least three separate criteria, we will generally not consider 
evidence relating to the leading or critical role criterion. Regardless, while the Petitioner's 
recommendation letters reflect that the Beneficiary contributed to his companies' activities, the 
Petitioner did not show the unusual influence or great impact in the overall field beyond his employer. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
As indicated earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner established that Beneficiary's eligibility for 
this criterion. In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
salary or remuneration is high relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 8 For 
the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner provided sufficient 
documentary evidence showing that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion, and the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner indicated that it employs the Beneficiary as a "Senior Vice President, Marketing & 
Solution/Product Management." In addition, the Petitioner submitted copies of the Beneficiary's 
paystubs. However, the Petitioner provided occupational employment statistics and wage data from 
bis.gov and flcdatacenter.com for "Marketing Managers." Although the Petitioner likens the 
Beneficiary's salary to the wages of marketing managers, it did not show that the Beneficiary 
commands a high salary "in relation to others in the field," such as senior vice presidents. See Matter 
of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings 
versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. o_f Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 
713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
7 The Petitioner's remaining articles received 7 citations or less. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
5 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 
1995) ( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary earned a high salary compared to other senior vice 
presidents in his field. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion, we withdraw the 
decision of the Director for 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 
Beneficiary has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, 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. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the significance of the Beneficiary's 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. In visa petition proceedings, 
the petitioner bears the 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 of V-, Inc., ID# 4194498 (AAO Sept. 11, 2019) 
6