dismissed EB-1A Case: Information Technology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear: y unvrairanted 
invasisl~ ~f persclnal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Isomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAR 2 7 2009 
LIN 07 088 503 14 
IN RE: 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&hn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director minimized the petitioner's accomplishments and 
supplements the record with a new reference letter and a copy of a district court decision. For the 
reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's analysis and conclusions. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an information 
technology consultant. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence 
that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specfication for which classfication is sought. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion by speaking at a seminar. Counsel does 
not explain whose work she "judged" during this seminar or what judging responsibilities were 
involved. Counsel's response to the director's request for additional evidence, which inquired as to 
how the petitioner's speaking role meets this criterion, does not address this criterion. It would appear 
that speaking at a seminar is more akin to the publication of scholarly articles and will be considered 
below as it relates to that criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The petitioner has not, 
however, established that she meets this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in theJie1d. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of technology, it can presumed that the contribution will have had a 
demonstrable impact on technology in the field generally as opposed to merely consisting of the 
constant incremental upgrades in software inherent to the field. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through her contributions to Oracle 
User Guides. The petitioner also submitted electronic mail correspondence between her and her 
colleagues. In response to the director's request for evidence as to the impact of the petitioner's work, 
counsel notes Oracle's market share and asserts that all of these users rely on the petitioner's user 
guides. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that her influence is recognized 
as having major significance to the field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director applied too high a 
standard and did not understand the field. The petitioner submits a new reference letter which we will 
consider below. 
The petitioner is listed as a "contributor" to the 2000 Oracle Applications Global Accounting Engine 
User Guide, Release 1 li, the 2003 Oracle Financials for France and the 2004 Oracle Applications 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
Global Accounting User Guide Release 11 i. The petitioner is listed as the author of a 1997 "AX 
Global Accounting Engine Mega Patch certification - Testing Information sheet" for Oracle. While 
the document is copyright protected, it is less clear that this document was published as opposed to 
serving as an internal document for Oracle. Specifically the "distribution" for the document is listed 
as "Project Library" and "Project Manager." While the petitioner submitted the 2000 Oracle 
Receivables with Vertex Quantum User Guide, she is not listed as a primary author, major 
contributor or contributor. 
The petitioner submitted documents entitled "Payable - Invoices Approval" listing the petitioner as 
the "owner" of various documents listed under "Document Control." These documents are 
apparently client or prospective client demonstration presentations for which the petitioner was 
responsible. 
The record contains an electronic-mail message from Lionel Siksik at Oracle announcing that OPSFI 
France has been implemented and thanking the "EADS Team" and the petitioner "who worked 
nights and days to help." In addition, several electronic-mail messages between the petitioner and 
other Oracle employees reflect her correspondence while working on this and other projects. The 
record adequately documents that the petitioner was an employee of Oracle and worked on projects. 
At issue is whether her contributions to projects at Oracle are recognized as having impacted the 
field beyond Oracle. These electronic-mail messages reflecting the general back and forth inherent 
to developing a software program for a client do not illuminate the petitioner's overall reputation in 
the field beyond her employer. We note that the statute and regulations do not require USCIS to 
review work product, such as thick user guides and electronic-mail correspondence, and make a 
subjective determination as to its significance. USCIS does not have the expertise to make such a 
determination. Rather, the statute and regulations require objective evidence that the alien enjoys 
national or international acclaim, which may be documented in part by contributions of major 
significance that, as explained above, must have demonstrably impacted the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted several letters from Oracle employees. The opinions of experts in the field, 
while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or 
international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. 
at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
Page 5 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
her reputation and who have applied her work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
Director at the Washington, D.C. metro area Oracle Corporation, discusses the 
mrrk in Ewe on the Oracle Globalization team and her work in Washinnon. D.C. on the 
" 2 
bemo Services Team. MS. raises the petitioner's knowledge, conscientiousness and language 
ability. Ms. does not provide any specific examples of a contribution that has impacted the 
information technology field as a whole. 
The remaining letters are similar. , an applications engineer for Oracle India who 
worked closely with the petitioner on various projects, praises her functional and Oracle specific 
knowledge and conscientiousness. 
 a financial functional consultant for Oracle ADS who 
credits the petitioner as a "mentor," describes the petitioner's work as a senior consultant build person, 
who builds existing software with industry data for demonstration by pre-sales consultants. Mr. = 
notes that the petitioner built products that include federal financials, purchasing, "GL" and payables. 
praises the petitioner's dedication to the projects and ability to deliver high quality product 
functional designs. The petitioner also submitted a downloaded recommendation from Tim Dexter, a 
group manager at Oracle, posted at wc\iw.linkedin.cornlreferences, accessed on November 2,2006. Mr. 
praises the petitioner's professionalism and willingness to take the time to gain the necessary 
insights for the project. A form evaluation from recommending the petitioner for an 
AAUW Educational Foundation fellowship, indicates he has known the etitioner as a colleague and 
fellow volunteer since 1995 and provides general praise. Finally, A, Regional Vice 
President for Oracle's North America Business Integration Services, praises the petitioner's integrity, 
work ethic and interactions with customers. Ms. notes the petitioner's experience in both Oracle 
applications and accounting. None of these letters identi@ a specific contribution to the field of 
information technology or any other field and explain how that contribution has impacted the field as a 
whole. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from Lead Faculty of Management Information 
Systems and Business Administration at the University of phoenix,' Jersey City, New Jersey. Mr.- 
reviews the petitioner's education and considerable experience with Oracle and concludes that she has 
and experience rarely seen, even at the tip of the field. ~r.does not claim to have 
2 
 The record does not reflect that the University of Phoenix is a regionally accredited university in the United 
States and we were unable to confirm such accreditation. See http://www.phoenix.edu 
/about uslaccreditation.aspx (accessed February 26,2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding). 
Page 6 
ever heard of the petitioner or her work prior to being approached for a reference. Rather, he indicates 
that his opinion is based on a review of her "letters of commendation, awards of recognition, work 
experience and academic record." While education and lengthy experience are criteria for aliens of 
exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act, see 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), these 
factors are not relevant to the classification sought. Mr. does not explain how the petitioner has 
impacted her field. 
While the petitioner's work is no doubt of value to Oracle, it can be argued that any work in 
information technology must be shown to be original and provide a useful service for clients. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated that her contributions to the Oracle user guides were original. 
Significantly, while the petitioner provided letters from multiple Oracle employees, none of them 
address what she "contributed" to these guides. It would appear that the guides to which she 
contributed were merely updated to reflect the current version of various Oracle products developed 
by others. 
Regarding her other work, incremental improvements to various programs and development of 
programs for specific clients are inherent to the field of software development. It does not follow 
that every consultant who builds a software package for a client has inherently made a contribution 
of major significance to the field as a whole. Without evidence that the petitioner is recognized 
beyond Oracle and her specific clients for the demonstration products she built, she cannot establish 
that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
At the outset, it is useful to look at the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(vi). 
First, the regulation requires evidence of "authorship." In other words, the alien must have authored the 
text at issue. Second, the authored material must be "scholarly." Third, the authored scholarly article 
must be an "article." Finally, the authored scholarly article must appear in "professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." The director dealt with only one of these factors, determining that 
the user guides were not scholarly. 
On appeal, counsel submits Giilen v. Chertofi 2008 WL 2779001 (E. D. Pa. July 16, 2008). In this 
case, the court found that a work becomes scholarly by virtue of its author and subject matter, not the 
audience. Id. at *3. Significantly, while holding that the work need not be aimed at other scholars, the 
court readily accepted the requirement in the USCIS Adjudicators Field Manual that the petitioner must 
provide evidence of the scholarly articles' "reception in the scholarly community." Id. The court then 
noted that the alien's work in that case was "prominent in the syllabi of graduate and undergraduate 
courses at major American colleges and universities" and that "there have been academic studies of the 
petitioner's thought." 
Page 7 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the 
AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising 
within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 718 (BIA 1993). The reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. In addition, 
as the published decisions of the district courts are not binding on the AAO outside of that particular 
proceeding, the unpublished decision of a district court would necessarily have even less persuasive 
value. 
Even if we found the reasoning in Giilen, 2008 WL 2779001 at *3, persuasive, it does not mandate a 
finding that the user guides are scholarly. We acknowledge that the guides are thick and involve 
complex software development guidance. Clearly, as counsel asserts, they go beyond the "simple 
instructions manual for a new toy one would buy at a local toy store." That fact, however, does not 
elevate these guides to "scholarly." They do not involve a scholarly analysis of Oracle, but provide 
basic instructions, however complex, for using a given product. Such user guides cannot be compared 
with the original theological tracts authored by the alien in Giilen. 
Moreover, the petitioner is never listed as an "author" of the user guides but as one of several 
"contributors." It would appear that the guides are primarily revisions of previously issued guides to 
account for updates to the product. The petitioner is not credited with a specific chapter or section 
within the guide that could be considered comparable to an "article" such that her contribution could be 
considered sufficient to meet the language set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Further, the petitioner has not established that the user guides constitute professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. By definition, a publication must be published. The record does not 
establish that the user guides were "published as opposed to being issued with the software product 
they support. Nor are they professional or trade publications, such as a peer-reviewed journal. While 
"other major media" is broader, the petitioner has not established that a user guide supplied to 
customers when they purchase a product is "major media" even if the client base is sizable. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has also given a presentation at a 1995 symposium. While a 
conference presentation can serve, on a case-by-case basis, as comparable evidence relating to this 
criterion, the record contains no evidence as to the impact of this 1995 presentation. As noted in the 
Gulen decision on which counsel relies, USCIS is justified in reviewing the impact of the scholarly 
articles in the scholarly community. Gulen, 2008 WL 2779001 at "3. The record contains no evidence 
of any impact that the petitioner's user guides or 1995 presentation have had on the scholarly 
information technology community. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion through her role at Oracle. 
 The director 
requested evidence that set the petitioner's position apart from the thousands of other employees at 
Oracle and concluded, in the final decision, that the petitioner had not done so. 
Counsel asserts that there are few experts who know Oracle sufficiently well to write the user guides, 
that the petitioner had to translate European accounting principals into system specifications and that 
she was the only user guide contributor with industry, product or Oracle Global Financials Products 
experience. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). None of the letters from Oracle employees 
confirm these assertions. Regardless, at issue for this criterion is not the petitioner's contributions 
while working for Oracle but the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected her. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The record contains significant materials about Oracle's reputation nationally and even internationally, 
including a lengthy customer list and a press release indicating that Oracle enjoys 44.4 percent of the 
market, "well ahead of competing products." Thus, we do not contest the company's distinguished 
national or international reputation. 
At issue is the nature of the petitioner's role with Oracle. According to the letters from Oracle 
employees, the petitioner worked as a senior consultant and senior consultant build person. The 
petitioner submitted information about Oracle downloaded from http://tinance.yahoo.com/ 
q/pr?s=ORCL (accessed November 2, 2006) indicating that Oracle employed 56,133 full-time 
employees at that time. The website http://finance.~oogle.com/finance?q=ORCL (accessed July 26, 
2007), also submitted by the petitioner, indicates that Oracle had 74,674 total employees at that time. 
The record does not contain evidence regarding how many senior consultants Oracle employs. Nor 
does the record contain an organizational chart that might demonstrate the significance of this position 
within Oracle. Without additional evidence, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the position of 
senior consultant is a leading or critical role for Oracle such that selection for the position in and of 
itself is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or intemational acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as an 
information technology consultant to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The 
evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent and lengthy experience as an information technology 
consultant, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all 
others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.