dismissed EB-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9731182 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an information technology professional, 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 that although the 
Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he did not show sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that 
he is coming to the United States to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 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 
international recognition of his or her 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 
he or she 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 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 Petitioner is an information technology professional who specializes in Cloud computing and e­
mail security technology. The record reflects that he has worked tori I, a leading network 
security company, at its,__ ________ __. since 2001. He indicates that he intends to 
establish his own IT consulting company in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to published materials in major media at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), scholarly articles 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and leading or critical roles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Although 
the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements, he concluded in the 
final merits determination that the record did not establish that he had the sustained national or 
international acclaim required for this classification. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has been the subject of two articles published in major Chinese 
media, authored several scholarly articles in professional publications, and performed in a critical role 
tori I which enjoys a distinguished reputation in its industry. Accordingly, we will not 
disturb the Director's determination that the Petitioner met three criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that he did not also meet the 
criteria relating to lesser nationally recognized awards and original contributions of major significance. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (v). Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies three criteria, 
2 
we will evaluate his claims regarding these two additional criteria in reviewing the totality of the 
evidence in the context of the final merits determination below.1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requIsIte initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 2 In this matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner began his career in the 1990s withl I 
I I and has been employed by I Is'------~-------' inl I 
China since 2001. According to an employment certificate provided by the company, he currently 
works as a research and development director in the Department of Foundation Software Development 
responsible for email security software products. The Petitioner did not submit a copy of his 
curriculum vitae or copies of his educational credentials, but we note that other evidence in the record 
indicates that he has a bachelor's degree in chemistry and a master's degree in software engineering 
froml I University. The Petitioner also provided a certificate from the Project Management 
Institute awarding him a "Project Management Professional (PMP)" credential. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has submitted evidence of published materials about him, evidence 
that he authored scholarly articles in professional publications, and evidence of his critical role with 
I I The Petitioner also emphasizes his contributions to industry awards received by his 
employer and his original contributions to his field. The record, however, does not demonstrate that 
his achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
ublished materials, the Petitioner submitted an article titled 17 
1--------------...i....i::.=ub=l..:.-=-;ished by www.sohu.com, and an article titled i J 
published online at tech.china.com and sourced from 
'-:c::i::-:-:in=--=a:-. p=--=r=cr:e=-. c=-=o:-::m=-.---i-1==-,-J-~-::-~r:-,;,.,=:_-=-;,..=-_-:,._.-=-:...,c1=-==c---a::-:r=-=e----::':s Im i I ar in content and provide d etai Is regarding the 
Petitioner's projects at .___ ___ _.were published ire=] 2019, approximately two months prior to 
the filing of the petition. While the Director determined that the articles were about the Petitioner and 
published in major media, he emphasized that both articles are very recent and therefore do not 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act). 
2 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
3 
establish that he has garnered sustained national acclaim in the form of media recognition for his 
achievements. The Director also noted that only two articles were provided, noting that this 
classification is intended for those "whose achievements have been recognized through extensive 
documentation." Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it is a "rare achievement" for an employee of a technology 
company to be deemed a subject worthy of national media coverage, and argues that the Director 
should have focused on the quality of the evidence, rather than the quantity. However, the Director 
did not solely focus on the quantity of evidence submitted. The Director also emphasized that the only 
evidence of published materials was very recent and for that reason did not support a determination of 
sustained acclaim, an observation that is not addressed by the Petitioner on appeal. 
While we acknowledge evidence that the articles were published on popular Chinese media portals, 
the Petitioner has not adequately supported his claim that it is "rare" for an individual in his field to 
receive media recognition or that any such recognition indicates that he is among that small percentage 
at the very top of the field. Both articles detail the Petitioner's academic and professional background 
and career progression withinl I they do not convey how he has already been recognized 
in the industry based on his achievements to date. Finally, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the publication of two articles just prior to the filing of this petition is 
indicative of his "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. Rep. 
No. at 59 and section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner provided evidence that he had authored six articles 
published in professional publications between 1996 and 2019. Publication of research does not 
automatically place an individual at the top of the field. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not provide evidence differentiating his publication rate from that of others in his field, or 
otherwise establish that publication of six articles over a period of 23 years is indicative of his standing 
among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his "important academic papers should be evaluated in the context 
of his significant accomplishments in applying theory to real-world practice," noting that since he has 
spent his career in industry rather than academia, his publication record can "lend strong support" to 
his eligibility for this classification. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that his overall 
publication rate should not be compared to those in researchers working strictly in academic settings, 
we note that he offers no other reference point for comparison. 
Nevertheless, we have not solely evaluated the number of papers published by the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner's citation history or other evidence of the influence of his articles can be an indicator to 
determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence 
has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the 
Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other researchers 
have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Of the Petitioner's six publications, he provided 
evidence that three of them have been cited by others. Specifically, he provided evidence that they 
have been cited 18, 8 and 2 times, respectively. While the citations to the Petitioner's publications, 
both individually and collectively, show that the field has noticed his work, he did not establish that 
4 
such rates of citation demonstrate a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show 
that the citations to his research represent attention at a level consistent with being among small 
percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Finally, while the Petitioner 
submitted letters from two professors atl I University praising his 2013 article published in 
Journal of Com]iuter Applications, neither individual explains how the publication of this paper, or 
tha~---~product(s) that incorporated his research, resulted in any individual recognition to the 
Petitioner or contributed to his sustained acclaim in his field. 
With respect the Petitioner's roles with I 11 I a senior vice president with the 
company, highlights the Petitioner's two most recent positions, notin that rior to his current position, 
he led the research and development team responsible for the which included: 
describes the Petitioner as the "technical backbone and team leader" of ,..___~ 
the project and as "a major contributor for the smooth release" of the team's products, noting that this 
software received multiple awards in 2006. He further explains that, since 2011, the Petitioner has 
served as a research and development director leading a team responsible for developing the 
company's email security software including 
I I He exp I ai ns the Petition~e-r-, s-t-ec_h_n-ic_a_l -co-n-tr-i b-u-t-io_n_s-an_d_h i_g_h_l i g-h-ts_t_h_e_m_a_r-ke~t 
leading position of these products as ranked by industry publications such as IDC MarketScape. In a 
second statement, I I describes some of the Petitioner's contributions to the company's 
technologies in more detail, noting that he has been responsible for the ongoing development of 
products and services that generate tens of millions of dollars in software sales annually. 
While the Director determined that this evidence was sufficient to establish the Petitioner's critical 
role with the company, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner's employment atl I 
has garnered him individual recognition outside of the company at a level consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. His employer has acknowledged his contributions with internal 
awards, including a "Successful Launch Award" in 2002, two "Product Delivery Excellence" awards 
in 2003, and an "Saas Excellence Award" in 2011. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
did not give sufficient weirt tol evidence that he directly contributed to the company's recei t of 
several industry awards in including a PC Magazine "Best Product" award for 
.-=====,-----------,,-.1 a CPW magazine award for 
,___ _ _.land a Software World magazine Golden Software A~w-a-rd,....,f=-o ..... r --------~-~ 
The letters froml I indicate that the,___ ___ ~---~ developed some of these 
products under the Petitioner's leadership, but the evidence as a whole does not establish that the 
company or the awarding entities acknowledge the Petitioner to be the recipient of these industry 
awards received by I lor deem the awards to be directly attributable to his work. The 
Petitioner's contributions to these and other successful! ]products substantiate his claim 
that he has served in a critical role for the company. However, even if we deemed the Petitioner to be 
the recipient of these awards as claimed, the record as a whole does not support a conclusion that his 
efforts resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim or that he is recognized in the industry 
as being among the small percentage at the very top of the field as a result of his contributions to these 
products. 
5 
The Petitioner also argues on appeal that he established that he has made oriainal contributions of 
major significance in his field, emphasizing his role in developing I ] products that "reach 
millions of users worldwide, including most of the lar est corporations in the world." The record 
includes a letter from I la professor at University, who states that thel I 
product developed under the Petitioner's leadership at.___ __ ____. was "one of the earliest micro­
service-based systems in the industry to be put into actual commercial operation," and notes that it 
was the topic of the Petitioner's master's thesis research and his 2013 paper published in the Journal 
of Computer Applications. I l who was the Petitioner's thesis advisor atl I 
University, discusses this same research in his letter, noting that the micro-service architecture the 
Petitioner proposed is based on "four principles of system design" which "not only had a breakthrough 
in theory, but also has been well validated in the actual development and deployment." However, the 
record does not establish how this research,! ts product, or the related published article 
(which had been cited eight times in six years) had a significant impact or influence in the field or how 
it has garnered the Petitioner the requisite sustained national or international acclaim in the industry. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has been named as a co-inventor on one U.S. patent application 
atl !filed inl I 2019. I I describes this invention as '1 I email 
technology [the Petitioner] developed based on computer vision" which ,__ ______ ____. with 
machine learning technology to distinguish I I email, which improves the detection rate of 
!email by more than 10 times." He opines that the invention "surely will become an 
~im_p_o-rt-an-t~technology in the field of I I detection in the future" but does not address its 
current impact or influence on the field or indicate that it has already been recognized in the industry 
as a major contribution. 
We have recognized! Is distinguished reputation in its industry and acknowledge that its 
products are highly regarded and widely used, but we cannot determine based on the evidence 
submitted that the Petitioner's individual contributions to these products have been widely influential 
in the industry, that they have had a significant impact beyond his own employer and its customers, or 
that they have resulted in his sustained acclaim or placed him among the small percentage of individual 
at the very top of his field. 
Finally, we acknowledge that three experts in the network security field have commented on the 
Petitioner's standing in this field. I I describes the Petitioner as "an outstanding talent" 
and "a top researcher and developer" in the field of cloud computing and e-mail security and states 
that he is "an excellent person who can create tremendous economic value." I I notes that 
the Petitioner "is a rare high-end cloud computing talent" whose software design experience~ 
c=]'have made him a leader in e-mail scanning analysis technical and distributed design."l___J 
c=]who states that he served as the Petitioner's manager atc=]in the late 1990s, indicates that the 
Petitioner proved himself to be "a good leader" and "a technical genius" who has since "worked 
continuously at the forefront of network security." While the Petitioner has earned the praise of his 
colleagues and mentors, the letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the 
record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall 
field as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
6 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit 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. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that 
there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record 
insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
the Director's separate determination that the Petitioner did not establish that he is coming to "continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability" as required under section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 of L-A-C-, 
26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 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. 
7