dismissed EB-1A Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF M-A-F-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 12, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITIONER FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology executive, seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or 
met the requirements of at least three of ten evidentiary criteria. The Director also found that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his entry will provide a substantial prospective benefit to the 
United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets the requirements of 
two evidentiary criteria in addition to the two that the Director found that he meets, and that he will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
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. 
.
Matter of M-A-F-
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 
sustained acclaim and the 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 categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)(x), those relating to judging the work of others and playing a leading or critical role 
for organizations with a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets 
the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards and a high salary. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not meet the requisite 
three evidentiary criteria. 1 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner's claim to this criterion is based upon both personal and team awards. Regarding his 
personal recognition, the record includes three certificates awarded to the Petitioner for his 
participation in the in 2003, 2004 and 2005, as well as a listing 
of the team standings in the 2004 ________ portion of the competition. On appeal, 
1 As we do not find that the Petitioner meets the requisite initial evidence, we need not determine whether the 
Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
2 
.
.
Matter of M-A-F-
he provides additional information about this annual international competition, including 
information about the organization's structure and previous competitions. However, the evidence 
does not indicate that the Petitioner received a prize or award other than these acknowledgments of 
his participation. While the Petitioner claims that he was a member of the fifth place 
team in 2004, he has not submitted evidence to corroborate his membership, or that a 
prize was awarded to members of the fifth place team. 
The Petitioner also submitted a certificate which indicates that he obtained the eighth rank in 
computer engineering in the in 2006. This certificate is 
dated September 10, 2015, nine years after the event, and the Petitioner has not submitted evidence 
of any prize or award that he received for achieving this ranking at the time of this competition. 
As for the awards that the Petitioner asserts should be attributed to him, despite not having received 
them as an individual, he provided evidence of three awards that were received by his current and 
former employers: 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that these awards should be attributed to him due to his positions 
within these companies, stating that "you know when a company received the award this is result of 
work of its key employees." We acknowledge that team or group awards may be attributed to a 
member who is integral to the receipt of the award by the team or group. As proof of his 
contribution towards these companies receipt of these awards, the Petitioner submits a letter dated 
January 2017 from CEO of , thanking him for his "valuable 
companionship, sympathy and supports for eleven years." In addition, the record includes a 
photograph of a trophy which the Petitioner asserts was awarded to him by for his 
"significant work." However, as the photograph is not accompanied by a translation of the 
inscription on the trophy, we are unable to determine the purpose of the trophy or that it was 
awarded to the Petitioner. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a document on letterhead 
entitled This undated document 
states that the Petitioner is selected as a "trustee of operating company" and that his "responsibility is 
limited to continuing production procedure." The totality of this evidence does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion that he was directly responsible for, or played an integral part in, 
receipt of these awards, as it does not provide specific details of his duties, projects or 
accomplishments which might have led to the awards. 
Regarding the award received by the Petitioner refers to a letter from 
the company's CEO, which indicates that since 2013, he has worked as a technical deputy with 
3 
.
Matter of M-A-F-
management of all technical departments within the company, including software development and 
maintenance. Although this evidence verifies the Petitioner's leadership role within this company, 
the record does not establish the basis of the award. The Petitioner's assertions 
regarding the organization awarding this prize and the criteria used are not supported by evidence in 
the record. Therefore, we cannot determine that the Petitioner's leadership role in was 
integral to its receiving the ___ award. 
Finally, we note that even if the record established that these company awards should be attributed to 
the Petitioner, we agree with the Director that it does not establish that these are nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence. While the Petitioner has made assertions 
regarding the criteria by which they were awarded and their significance, these assertions are not 
supported by documentary evidence in the record. For example, we recognize that the signature of 
the of Iran lends a certain amount of evidentiary weight to the award received 
by at the But the 
record lacks documentary evidence regarding this festival, the history of the award, other rewards 
received at the festival, the criteria by which competitors were judged, and any notice of this award 
outside of the festival. Without such evidence, we cannot determine that the award was recognized 
in the field of information technology at the national or international level. 
For all of the reasons given above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner asserts that he has served as a judge of the work of others in the information 
technology field in three different settings. First, he submitted a letter from 
of the m Iran, who writes that he "introduced [ the Petitioner] as 
a technical committee member of competitions to the organizers of 
the event in 2006." indicates that the Petitioner was responsible for organizing the 
competitions, but does not mention that he acted as a judge. 
Second, the Petitioner refers to a letter dated November 30, 2015, from , a 
member of board of directors, thanking him for his "participation in as a judge 
for selecting the chosen startups in 2014." The Petitioner asserts that his role was to help choose a 
winner between two teams competing for funding from a startup accelerator program, but the record 
does not include evidence which provides further detail regarding the duties performed by the 
Petitioner, the entities judged, or the criteria by which they were judged. Absent such evidence, we 
cannot determine that the Petitioner judged the work of others in the same or an allied field. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a certificate which expresses appreciation for his participation in a 
roundtable discussion at an electronic banking conference in January 2016. This evidence does not 
indicate that he served as a judge of the work of others in this role. 
4 
.
Matter of M-A-F-
Therefore, we disagree with the Director's decision and find that the Petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
Although we agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion, we base that 
determination on the evidence of his role as a technical deputy with which counts some of 
Iran's largest banks as its clients. In particular, the previously mentioned letter from 
demonstrates that he leads all technical departments for the company and is its highest paid 
employee. The record regarding the Petitioner's employment with , consisting primarily of 
his resume and written statements, is insufficient to establish that he played a leading or critical role. 
Accordingly, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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 support of his claim to have earned a high salary, the Petitioner submitted evidence that he earned 
more than 192 million Iranian real (IRR) in one month in 2016, and received total compensation of 
more than 3.4 billion IRR in the year 1395 of the Persian calendar (2016-2017). On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a salary report from which states that it is based upon an online 
questionnaire with over 100,000 Iranians participating. According to this report, monthly salaries 
for senior managers and executives in production or operation roles averaged 45 million IRR, and 
the 80th percentile was at 80 million IRR. For those same positions in programming and Web 
development roles, those figures were 40 million IRR and 70 million IRR, respectively. In addition, 
a response posted on a website cites to a 2014 report from the Iranian government which indicates 
that the average monthly household income in Iran is just over 17 million IRR. We therefore 
disagree with the Director's decision and find that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for his work as an information technology executive. 
Accordingly, he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized 
award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
5 
Matter of M-A-F-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-A-F-, ID# 1630167 (AAO Oct. 12, 2018) 
6