dismissed EB-1A Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 1 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. "Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis .gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
jtt� 
Rj� R nberg 
lr Chief, dministrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a systems architect in the information technology field, seeks classification as an "alien 
of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)( A), which makes visas available to individuals 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 
determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F. R 
§ 204. 5( h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The director found that the petitioner had met only the 
category of evidence at 8 C.F. R. § 20 4.5( h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement contesting the director's decision and copies of previously 
submitted documents. The petitioner asserts that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for 
the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three 
of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. lAW 
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 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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 H.R. 723 10151 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner can 
demonstrate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that users examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individu ally or on a panel, as a ju dge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a November 15, 2013 letter from Vice President, Information 
Services, , Georgia, stating: 
[The petitioner] is [] a fulltime employee of' and works on my team. 
* * * 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner asserts that he meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
In addition to performing his critical tasks, [the petitioner] also reviews the work of his peers, 
judges the abilities of his team members, leads our technical interview panel to judge and 
recruit the right candidates for the team. His judgment and input are always taken into 
consideration when making critical and important decisions. 
The petitioner also submitted a November 6, 2013 letter from 
Client Managing Director, , stating: 
Vice President and 
My association with [the petitioner] occurred when he was a full time employee of 1 
and worked as a member of my team from November 2010 to July 
2013 ... . 
* * * 
As part of his daily responsibilities, [the petitioner] was tasked with reviewing and providing 
feedback on the work of other team members at both our and offshore delivery 
centers. He was able to establish a fantastic working relationship with his teams, leading 
them to execute projects with. a high level of efficiency while delivering with optimum 
quality. 
With regard to the letters from and , the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a judge of the work of others." The 
petitioner has not established that performing routine supervisory duties such as reviewing 
coworkers' job performance, interviewing and recruiting job candidates, and providing feedback on 
the work of fellow team members equates to participation as a judge of the work of others in the 
field. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or 
individually as specified at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include 
every informal instance of staff supervision or internal review of one's coworkers. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a November 15, 2013 letter from 
Officer, Georgia, stating: 
, Chief Executive 
[The petitioner] has exceptional IT [Information Technology] skills in Business Intelligence, 
Data Warehousing and ETL [Extract, Transform and Load] process and has voluntarily 
helped our company and our employees many times. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is a true mentor and an outstanding leader for all our current employees in 
high end technology consulting who are working as IT consultants for distinguished clients . 
. He has judged many of our employees by reviewing their performance, solutions, and 
recruitment. 
Ms. asserts that the petitioner "has judged many . . . employees by reviewing their 
performance, solutions, and recruitment." Again, the petitioner has not established that carrying out 
duties such as performance reviews and recruitment functions equates to participation as a judge of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
the work of others in the field. In addition, the aforementioned assertion in Ms. letter does 
not constitute evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of others. users need 
not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited 
weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field). Moreover, if testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). A letter asserting that the 
petitioner judged "many" employees without specifying the work he judged and the other workers' 
fields of specialization is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. In this instance, there 
is no documentary evidence of the petitioner's participation in a formal judging capacity, either on a 
panel or individually, as specified at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (iv). 
The petitioner also submitted a November 12, 2013 letter from 
Engineer, Information Management, , stating: 
I recently came to know [the petitioner] when we installed the 
' for his employer 
* * * 
, Big Data Systems 
product ' 
We installed a very latest version 7.0.4 of for our customer 
which includes lots of new features and functionalities compared to previous 
versions. 
[The petitioner] demonstrated extraordinary ability in integrating into their 
corporate IT system with all other databases, reporting tools and data integration tool[ s] like 
to perform '' " He was able to review all of the functionalities 
and database transactions scenarios of to test and verify all the existing and 
new functionalities of the product. 
His critical review of the product with the real enterprise data and integration to test and 
execute all the test plans demonstrated his deep and extraordinary knowledge, outstanding 
logical an analytical skills and exceptional abilities to perform critical review and testing 
tasks. 
During his review of latest version of system [the petitioner] performed data 
integrity test, stored procedure/functions test, load balance test, date type test, database 
performance test, parallelism test, data size test, transaction concurrency test, 
integration test, reporting integration test, data security test and data prototyping 
after integrating historical data of more than 1200 stores, which was truly an 
incredible task. 
* * * 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
also relies on the feedback and experience from market and test results and review 
comments given by [the petitioner] will help to improve our products and help other 
organizations with mission critical data and looking for a solution with 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he performed a "state-of-the-art-review" of the product 
" '' and "reviewed the functionalities of many 
products of 
_ 
" 
With regard to the comments of the petitioner and Mr. 
the petitioner has not established that performing systems architecture duties for his employer, 
such as testing and reviewing an product that his company purchased or reviewing the 
functionality of a data integration tool that his company installed, constitutes his participation as a 
judge of the work of others in the field. Again, there is no documentary evidence of the petitioner's 
participation in a formal judging capacity, either on a panel or individually, as required by the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5( h)(3)(iv). 
The petitioner further states that he "reviewed billions of global trade transactions, retail accounts 
and institutional books" while working at In addition, the petitioner states that he 
"reviewed billions of loan transactions" and "reviewed millions of historic loan data" while working 
at . The record, however, does not include documentary evidence to support the 
claims. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). Regardless, the petitioner has not established that conducting such data reviews for his 
employers equates to participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his role for 
, and The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established eligibility for this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner discusses his work developing information technology systems at 
. The petitioner previously submitted letters of support from and 
Project Manager, demonstrating that he has performed in a 
critical role for their company. For example, the petitioner oversaw development of· 
enterprise data warehouse which was essential to the company's retail finance business. Although 
the petitioner has demonstrated that he performed in a critical role for he did not 
submit any documentary evidence showing that has earned a distinguished reputation. 
Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner's appeal statement also discusses his employment with 
as an information technology consultant. Regarding the petitioner's role for 
the November 6, 2013 letter from states: 
My association with [the petitioner] occurred when he was a full time employee of 
and worked as a member of my team from November 2010 to July 
2013; during which time I was serving as an Associate Director - Account Manager at our 
client site in GA. 
* * * 
I was with for 8+ years, during which time I spent the last 4 years (September 
2009 to July 2013) personally responsible for the client relationship, P&L [Profit and Loss] 
and delivery management at client site, with direct 
managerial responsibility for 200+ employees. . . . I was fortunate enough to 
count [the petitioner] as a key member of my team on this account, where he worked on 
team. 
[The petitioner] served as a Technical Lead on this team, and he was an integral resource 
who was looked to and counted on by the client in several high-profile projects, including 
deliveries for ; Leadership Dashboard, Reporting and Sales & Retention 
Dashboards. He proved to be a hands-on leader to the other members of my technical team 
and demonstrated robust knowledge of client requirements, technologies and business 
processes. We simply would not have enjoyed the success that we had without [the 
petitioner] the most critical member on the ground, continually exceeding the client's 
expectations day in and day out, leading the team to successful delivery after delivery. 
As part of his daily responsibilities, [the petitioner] was tasked with reviewing and providing 
feedback on the work of other team members at both our and offshore delivery 
centers. He was able to establish a fantastic working relationship with his teams, leading 
them to execute projects with a high level of efficiency while delivering with optimum 
quality. His technical strengths are centered in advanced data warehouse technologies such 
and 
* * * 
His performance was central to the projects that our team delivered at 
Mr. comments on the petitioner's role for as a Technical 
Lead on the team. While the petitioner's 
role may have been central to the consultancy projects assigned to the team, there is no evidence 
showing that his role was leading or critical for . In general, a 
leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits within the hierarchy and duties of 
an organization or establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of the petitioner's 
contributions to the organization or establishment's success or standing. The petitioner did not provide 
an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where his role fit within the overall 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
hierarchy of _ The submitted documentation does not differentiate 
the petitioner from directors, account managers, executives, and 
other project team leaders, so as to demonstrate his leading role, and fails to establish that he 
contributed to the company in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of its 
activities. 
With regard to reputation, Mr. states: 
_ 
is one of the fastest growing organizations in IT Services and Consulting. In 
2011, named it as the world's third most admired IT Services Company, 
and is included in both the NASDAQ-100 and the S&P 500 indices with Annual 
Revenues of USD $7.5B in 2012. 
In regard to Mr. assertions regarding coverage in , its stock indices 
listings, and annual revenues, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to support the 
statements. Once again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. Furthermore, USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y 
Gen., 74 5 F. Supp. at 17; see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "It is understood that organizations like · and 
may not be considered with [sic] distinguished reputation considering the nature of 
business," because they are technology firms. The petitioner requests that we consider his 
distinguished work, critical roles, his contributions to the field, and his achievements rather than the 
reputation of the organizations where he worked. The petitioner's work projects, roles, 
contributions, and achievements for and have 
already been considered above. Regardless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
the petitioner to perform his leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." Working for a technology firm does not relieve the petitioner of meeting 
the regulatory requirement that the organizations or establishments "have a distinguished 
reputation." 
Regarding his role for 
from 
the petitioner submitted a November 10, 2013 letter 
an infrastructure designer "working in the IT department of 
" at its ' location." Mr. whose letter was not on 
his company's letterhead, states: 
I worked with [the petitioner] for almost 3 years to complete various enterprise IT Projects. 
We were part of Data Integration Team responsible for the integration of all the business data 
across the country into a single enterprise data warehouse. 
At the time, [the petitioner] was employed by , our Prime IT 
consulting Vendor, and serve[ d] as our assigned Consultant for the various projects. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
[The petitioner] performed a critical role in developing complex modules using Informatica. 
The role he performed was essential to our successful delivery of the projects, which had 
significant impact on various business aspects, including Sales, Marketing, and Incentive 
Management. Without his guidance, the projects, and therefore the company, would have 
suffered. 
With regard to the petitioner's role as a consultant on the Data Integration Team at 
there is no documentary evidence differentiating the importance of the petitioner's 
role from that of the other Data Integration Team members, let alone from that of 
IT managers and executives, so as to demonstrate his leading role for the company. 
In addition, the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner's specific consulting services 
contributed to in a way that was significant to its success or standing and 
consistent with the meaning of "critical role." The petitioner did not submit, for instance, evidence 
from any executives discussing the significance of his specific contributions to 
the company beyond its utilization of information technology consultants to assist with resource 
delivery projects. 
In regard to the reputation of -------- Mr. states: 
is a privately owned subsidiary of . providing digital 
cable television, telecommunications and wireless services in the United States. It is the 
third-largest cable television provider in the United States, serving more than 7 million 
customers, including 3 million digital cable subscribers, 4 million Internet subscribers and 
almost 3.2 million digital telephone subscribers, making it the seventh-largest telephone 
carrier in the country. 
Regarding Mr. statements concerning the petitioner did not submit 
any documentary evidence to support the assertions. Again, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Furthermore, USCIS need not rely on 
unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. at 17; see also Visinscaia, 4 
F.Supp.3d at 134-35. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that has a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the petitioner's appeal states: 
I served many U.S. organizations like 
and played several lead & critical roles to complete their key enterprise IT projects. I 
have also very large international experience working and playing lead and critical roles in 
organizations in other countries like India, United Kingdom and Singapore. 
The record, however, does not include any documentary evidence to support the petitioner's 
assertions regarding his leading and critical roles for the aforementioned organizations. Once again, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of this criterion, and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact 
and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
The petitioner submitted the following concerning his salary and remuneration: 
1. A December 16, 2013 memorandum to USCIS from Vice President of 
Human Resources, · stating that the petitioner "earns a base salary of 
$120,000 and will receive a 25% ($30,000) bonus around first quarter of 2014"; 
2. Seven 2013 earnings statements from reflecting that the 
petitioner received "Gross Pay" of $8,453.96 monthly or $10 1,447. 52 yearly; 
3. Three Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2010 from 
and totaling $80,8 31.25; 
4. A Form W-2 for 2011 from reflecting earnings of 
$89, 664.27; and 
5. A Form W-2 for 2012 from reflecting earnings of 
$99,278.92. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted four pay statements from 
covering February 20, 2014 to March 19, 2014. The submitted pay statements reflect 
that the petitioner earned $4,615.38 biweekly, or approximately $120,000.00 yearly. In addition, the 
latest pay statement shows that the petitioner received a $30,000.00 bonus on March 26, 2014. The 
petitioner received these earnings subsequent to filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, on February 18, 2014. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F. R. 
§ 103. 2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, 
we cannot consider earnings received after February 18, 2014 as evidence to establish the petitioner's 
eligibility at the time of filing. 
The petitioner's response included a January 13, 2013 letter from 
employment as a Senior Data Integration Architect at 
January 27, 2014 with "an annual salary of USD 228,000/anum." 
include any evidence showing the petitioner's actual earnings from 
offering the petitioner 
beginning on 
The record, however, does not 
The petitioner also submitted "Salary Search" results from www. for the job titles 
"architect," "data analyst," "data tester," "ETL developer," "ETL tester," and "Info rmatica." The 
online search results list the "Average Salary" of jobs in Georgia that match the 
aforementioned job titles. The petitioner's reliance on "average" salary data for jobs in 
Georgia is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit evidence showing that he 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field, not just a 
salary that is above average in his locality. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted "0-NET OnLine" summary reports for "Database Architects" 
and "Data Warehousing Specialists" reflecting "Median wages" of $81,140.00 for 2012. Again, the 
petitioner's reliance on "median" wage data is not a proper basis for comparison. This regulatory 
criterion requires evidence showing that the petitioner has earned a high salary or significantly high 
remuneration in relation to others in the field rather than a salary that simply places him the top half of 
his field. 
The petitioner also submitted July 2013 - June 2014 "Online Wage Library" Foreign Labor 
Certification "Wage Results" for the ' Georgia" metropolitan 
statistical area indicating that the Level 4 (fully competent) yearly prevailing wage for "Computer 
Occupations, All Other" and "Software Developers, Applications" was $108,160.00 and 
$102,315.00, respective ly.2 The petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that he has 
earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field, not just a 
salary that is above the amount paid to the majority of fully competent Applications Software 
Developers and Computer professionals in the Georgia area. Furthermore, the accompanying 
descriptions for the "Computer Occupations, All Other" and "Software Developers, Applications" 
job categories are not similar to the petitioner's job duties as a Data Integration Architect such that 
the salaries for those occupational categories would represent appropriate basis for comparison in 
demonstrating that the petitioner's salary was high in relation to others in the field. 
Additionally, the petitioner submitted eight electronic filings of Labor Condition Applications for 
the H-lB Nonimmigrant Visa Program. The applications list prevailing wages for Level II 
(qualified) and Level III (experienced) "Data Integration Architect" jobs. Again, the petitioner must 
submit evidence showing that he has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
relative to others in the field, not just a salary that is above the amount paid to the majority of 
qualified or experienced Data Integration Architects in a particular area. 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 
(9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); see also 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); Grimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers). The submitted evidence does not show that the 
petitioner has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to 
others in his field? 
2 A "prevailing wage" is defined as "trade and public work wages paid to the majority of workers in a specific 
area." See http:Uwww.bus inessdictionary.com/definition!prevailing-wage.html, accessed on January 26, 
2015, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
3 We note that the online wage data the petitioner provided do not include bonuses. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the.petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204. 5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought. 4 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 F.3d at 145. In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 
C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy 
INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).