dismissed EB-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19920861 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 26, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) project manager, seeks classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 approved the petition, but later revoked that approval on 
notice, under the provisions of section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, and 8 C.F.R. § 205.2. The 
Director concluded that the petition had been approved in error because the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision, and a subsequent combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
The burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in 
revocation proceedings. Section291 oftheAct,8U.S.C. § l36l;MatterofCheung, 12 l&NDec. 715 
(BIA 1968); and Matter of Es time, 19 l&N Dec. 450, 452, n.1 (BIA 1987). Upon review, we will 
dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Section 205 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1155. By regulation this revocation authority is delegated to any U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) officer who is authorized to approve an immigrant visa petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 205 .2(a). USCIS must give the petitioner notice of its intent to revoke the prior approval 
of the petition and the opportunity to submit evidence in opposition thereto, before proceeding with 
written notice ofrevocation. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and(c). The Board oflmmigrationAppeals has 
discussed revocations on notice as follows : 
[A] notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly issued for "good and 
sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the 
petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained 
where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any 
evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention 
to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Es time, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and 
sufficient cause for the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke an immigrant petition. Id. The approval 
of a visa petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but 
a preliminary step in the visa application process. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the 
petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. at 589. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 the initial evidence requirements, through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
IT. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements, such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee, but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, originally from Nigeria, is a Canadian citizen. He received his Doctor of Computer 
Science from !University in 2016. At the time he filed the petition in 2016, he 
worked as an IT manager for Subse uent letters indicated that the Petitioner began 
working as a lead business systems anal st for in 2019, and as manager 
of IT Systems and Administration for beginning in 2021. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied five of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director approved the petition in December 2016, but revoked the approval in December 2019 
based on the conclusion that the Petitioner met only one of the criteria, relating to memberships. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from the Director's decision in October 2020. In that decision, we 
discussed the five claimed evidentiary criteria in depth, and concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied 
two of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating to judging the work of others and publication of scholarly 
articles. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider in July 2021, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not accurately describe the grounds for revocation or fully address the 
grounds for dismissal of the appeal. We also discussed, in further detail, the criteria pertaining to 
memberships and high remuneration, and concluded that the Petitioner's new evidence did not show that 
he had satisfied those criteria. 
In his second motion, the Petitioner submits more evidence pertaining to memberships and remuneration. 
For the reasons discussed below, this new evidence does not establish proper cause for reopening the 
proceeding. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international expe1ts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Throughout this proceeding, the Petitioner has maintained that his status as a senior member of the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) meets the requirements of the criterion. 1 The 
1 The Petitioner is also a memberoftheAssociationforComputerMachine1y, but his latest motion includes evidence only 
regarding his IEEE membership. 
3 
Director agreed, but we withdrew and reversed that determination in our appellate decision, finding that 
the requirements for senior membership do not include outstanding achievements, and that the Petitioner 
had not shown that recognized national or international experts judge the achievements of candidates for 
senior membership. 
In our decision on the Petitioner's first motion, we concluded that the Petitioner's additional evidence 
showed that senior membership is more restrictive than lower membership categories, but the Petitioner 
had not shown that the requirements for senior membership rose to the level of outstanding achievements 
as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Now, on his second motion, the Petitioner states: 
The election to senior member status of IEEE is conducted by the Admission and 
Advancement (A&A) Senior Member Review Panel ... [ with members] recruited among 
Senior members, Life Senior members, and Fellows of the section where the meeting is 
to be held. The panel members are experts in their chosen fields. 
The new evidence submitted with the second motion does not establish that panel members are nationally 
or internationally recognized experts in their fields, as the regulation requires. As we noted in a prior 
decision, an IEEE official previously indicated that panel members are typically chosen "from the local 
IEEE Section." This information, directly from the IEEE, did not indicate that panel service was limited 
to nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of the IEEE Fellow Committee Recommendation Guide: How 
to Write an Effective Nomination. The Petitioner observes: "The IEEE Bylaws define the qualifications 
for elevation to Fellow Grade in terms of unusual distinction in the profession, an outstanding record of 
accomplishments ... bringing the realization of significant value to society." As we previously observed 
in our appellate decision, "the requirements to become a Fellow appear to be align much more closely 
with the regulatory language than the requirements for the Senior Member grade." 
The Petitioner asserts: "The only importantrequirementduringnomination[forelevation to fellow grade] 
is that the nominee must be a Senior member of IEEE. This is because you must have met and passed 
through the rigorous screening process before you can become a Senior member of the association." The 
second quoted sentence is speculative and unsupported. While senior members are more experienced 
and accomplished than the overall IEEE membership, the Petitioner has not established that applicants 
for senior member grade are subjected to a "rigorous screening process," or that senior membership is 
"[t]he only important requirement" for elevation to fellow grade. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that "only 9% ofIEEE['s] 428,000 members have achieved the status 
of Senior Member in the organization." Ninepercentof428,000 is 38,520, which is a substantial number. 
The Petitioner has not shown that IEEE has empaneled nationally or internationally recognized experts 
in order to individually judge the achievements of thousands of applicants for senior membership, which 
includes nearly 40,000 applicants whose applications were approved and an unspecified additional 
number of unsuccessful applicants. Printouts from IEEE's website show that IEEE has a dedicated 
Fellow Committee, which makes recommendation to the IEEE Board of Directors- literally the highest 
level of the organization. In contrast, as noted above, senior members are chosen at the local chapter 
4 
level, a delegation that is fully consistent with the very high number of senior members. Also, the same 
printouts indicate that "[a]ccording to IEEE Bylaw I-305.5, the total number of Pellow recommendations 
in any one year must not exceed one-tenth of one percent of the voting membership." 
While the Petitioner's motion establishes thatIEEEhaspublisheda 2 7-page guide for individuals wishing 
to nominate an IEEE member for elevation to fellow grade, he does not submit similar documentation 
relating to senior member grade to establish that his membership would qualify under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
IEEE's requirements for elevation to fellow grade clearly state that nominees must "[h]ave 
accomplishments that have contributed importantly to the advancement or application of engineering, 
science and technology, bringing the realization of significant value to society." The Petitioner has not 
shown that the requirements for senior member status appmach that level of achievement. Instead, those 
requirements include productivity and length of experience. The Petitioner has not established that his 
level of IEEE membership clears the very high threshold established in the language of the regulation. 
The newly submitted Recommendation Guide does not establish proper cause for reopening the 
proceeding. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In the denial notice, the Director noted that the Petitioner earned $115,000 per year, and submitted "wage 
statistics that indicate that those at the top of the field command at least $129,700." Some of the wage 
information came from O-NET, a database operated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL). In our initial appellate decision, we concluded that the submitted evidence 
was too broad to show thatthe Petitioner has commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field. 
Some of the evidence failed to account for local variations, and others included lower-paying occupations 
under broad umbrella terms. In our first motion decision, we concluded that the Petitioner's submitted 
figures were not applicable for various reasons. 
In his second motion, the Petitioner submits printouts from O-NET and another DOL-sponsored website, 
CareerOneStop. The printouts from both sites indicate that the salary data is for "Computer Occupations, 
All Other," because specific data for IT project managers are unavailable. This evidence is of 
questionable relevance because, as we explained in a previous decision, the general heading of"Computer 
Occupations, All Other" encompasses what O-NET acknowledged as "occupations with a wide range of 
characteristics." Most of the included occupations are non-managerial. Therefore, average or median 
figures for this diverse grouping would likely tend to be lower than for the Petitioner's specific 
occupation. Furthermore, the Petitioner seeks to compare the median salary for this broad range of 
computer workers not to his base salary, but to his total projected compensation which included the 
possibility, but not the guarantee, of a 10% bonus. 
In our prior decisions, we explained why the submitted salary infonnation is oflimited applicability. The 
Petitioner's newly submitted documentation is subject to these same limitations, and therefore does not 
show proper cause for reopening the proceeding. 
5 
We note that, if the Petitioner had cleared the initial evidentiary threshold, the case would have proceeded 
to a final merits determination, in which the Petitioner would have had to establish sustained national or 
international acclaim. In the context of sustained acclaim, it would have been relevant to note that the 
Petitioner changed jobs a number oftimes in the years immediately surrounding the filing of the petition, 
and that he provided salary or remuneration evidence for only some of his jobs during that time. With 
incomplete evidence, we would not be able to conclude that his compensation reflected sustained national 
or international acclaim. 2 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceeding and 
has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. We will therefore dismiss the motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2 The evidence of his salary with which formed the basis for most of his sa la1y claims, consists of a job offerletter 
rather than any evidence of payments he actually received. Therefore, the Petitioner ha snot established that he actually 
received the contingent 10% bonus described in the job offer letter. 
6