dismissed EB-1A Case: It Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 35932700 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior security engineer, seeks classification as an alien 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 the Petitioner did not satisfy 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The Director dismissed a subsequently filed motion. 1 The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b)( 1)(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 
1 The Petitioner incorrectly asserts that we dismissed his motion throughout his brief. The record reflects that the Director, 
the official who had jurisdiction , issued both the initial and motion decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii) . We have 
jurisdiction over the appeal and will review the record for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iv). 
(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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
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 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established his receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined the Petitioner met only two (judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) of the seven claimed evidentiary criteria. On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains his qualification for five additional criteria. 2 
A. Awards 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt oflesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." The 
Petitioner argues eligibility for this criterion based on his receipt ofl in 2013. As 
described in a supporting letter from A-S-, co-founder ofl IConference: 
I I is an IT security conference in multiple countries which is organized and 
owned byl I It showcases top professionals and the new 
frontier of offensive and defensive secure technology, prototypes, exhibitions, 
seminars, workshops, and networking within the cohesive IT security ecosystem. 
welcomes thousands of CXOs, IT security researchers, experts at major 
IT organizations, senior government officials, and other SMEs each year which also 
features national-level skill challenges, including as 
2 Any ground of ineligibility that is not raised on appeal is waived. See Matter of O-R-E-, 28 l&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 
2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 
well as the _____ competition, the particular venue of [the Petitioner's] 
prized technical performance in 2013. 
challenges contestants to identify IT security vulnerabilities 
regarding software, or social media, or online security risks under a high-pressure time 
hackathon environment. This 36-hour contest also enlisted respected IT security 
experts to evaluate the technical complexity and significance of vulnerabilities as 
presented by competing teams to be awarded and recognized for their merits. 
[The Petitioner] was an awarded winner of which in 2013 was 
sponsored by Red Bull, which notably profiled the rigorous 36-hour challenge, 
picturing [the Petitioner] and the impressive outcomes of this technical competition as 
determined by I I panel of experts to determine the prize winners. [The 
Petitioner] with his teammate ... were awarded for uncovering a I I security 
vulnerability. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from redbull.com advertising ______ 
I 12013," screenshots from "recogniz[ing] the security researchers who 
have helped make I Ionline services safer by finding and reporting security vulnerabilities," 
and screenshots from listing the Petitioner as a winner of the 
2013 as part of his speaker biography. 
Although he established his receipt of the award, the Petitioner did not show ______ 
national or international recognition for excellence in the field. 3 The evidence reflects background 
information about the contest, including A-S-'s letter, rather than demonstrating the national or 
international recognition for excellence in the field of Moreover, while the 
Petitioner discovered a vulnerability withl lonline services, as well as the event sponsored by 
Red Bull, the Petitioner did not show the recognition of the award in the field beyond I I 
Simply presenting an award garnered in the field is insufficient 
to meet this criterion without establishing the national or international recognition for excellence in 
the field of such award. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate he satisfies this criterion. 
B. Memberships 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his senior membership with the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"[d]ocumentation 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 experts in their disciplines or fields." USCIS determines if the association for which 
the person claims membership requires that members have outstanding achievements in the field as 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (instructing that USCIS 
determines whether the award is a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award which the person received 
for excellence in the field of endeavor). 
3 
judged by recognized experts in that field. 4 The pet1t10ner must show that membership in the 
association requires outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts. 5 
The Petitioner presented a congratulatory letter from K-J-R-L-, IEEE president, indicating that"[ o ]nly 
10% ofIEEE's more than 400,000 members hold this grade, which requires extensive experience, and 
reflects professional maturity and documented achievements of significance." According to the 
submitted constitution and bylaws, senior membership requires: 1) candidates shall be engineers, 
scientists, educators, technical executives, or originators in IEEE-designated fields, 2) candidates shall 
have been in professional practice for at least ten years, 3) candidates shall have shown significant 
performance over a period of at least five of those years, and 4) candidates must supply three references 
from current IEEE members holding the grade of Fellow, Senior Member, or Honorary Member. In 
further explaining five years of significant performance, the constitution and bylaws indicate: 
"Significant performance" does not require special awards, patents, or other 
sophisticated technical accomplishment. Indications of significant performance are 
substantial job responsibilities such as team leader, task supervisor, engineer in charge 
of a program or project; engineer or scientist performing research with some measure 
of success (papers); or faculty developing and teaching courses with research and 
publications, as well as the following: 
• Substantial engineering, responsibility or achievement. 
• Publication or engineering or scientific papers, books, or inventions. 
• Technical direction or management of important scientific or engineering work 
with evidence of accomplishment. 
• Recognized contributions to the welfare of the scientific or engineering 
profession. 
• Development or furtherance of important scientific or engineering courses that 
fall within the IEEE designated fields of interest. 
• Contributions equivalent to those of the above in such areas as technical editing, 
patent prosecution or patent law, provided these contributions serve to advance 
progress substantially in IEEE designated fields. 
The Petitioner has not shown the requirements for senior membership with IEEE reflect outstanding 
achievements. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that attaining a particular professional 
occupation, accumulating years of experience, and obtaining reference letters from other senior 
members represent outstanding achievements. 6 Similarly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
"significant performance" clause necessitates outstanding achievements. For example, the Petitioner 
4 See generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). 
5 Id. 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (indicating that relevant factors that may lead to a conclusion 
that the person's membership in the association(s) was not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are 
not limited to, instances where the person's membership was based solely on the following factors (by themselves or in 
the aggregate): a level of education or years of experience in a particular field; the payment of a fee or by subscribing to 
an association's publications; and a requirement, compulsory or otherwise, for employment in certain occupations, as 
commonly seen with union membership or guild affiliation for actors). 
4 
did not establish that "substantial job responsibilities," "performing research with some measure of 
success," or "faculty developing and teaching courses with research and publications" signifies 
outstanding achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion. Without further explanation and 
information relating to some of the other examples, the Petitioner has not established that senior 
membership with IEEE requires outstanding achievements. 7 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that recognized national or international experts judge 
senior membership for IEEE. The Petitioner's initial cover letter claimed: 
IEEE Senior Members are accepted after objective and qualitative outstanding merits 
by IEEE leadership whose bylaws also explicitly require independent validation by 3 
high-level IEEE references, [ ] in a multi-stage review - which we note parallel's 
USCIS' two-part review of extraordinary ability - which concludes with a totality 
decision by IEEE as to one's outstanding merits to gain IEEE Senior Membership. 
[The Petitioner's] Senior Member application material identifies three recognized 
experts at IEEE ... , who evaluated [the Petitioner'] outstanding achievements through 
significant career performance, outcomes, and industry recognition, the basis of his 
membership. 
Here, the Petitioner conflates IEEE's reference requirement with the judging requirement under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). IEEE requires the submission of three references from current IEEE members 
holding the grade of Fellow, Senior Member, or Honorary Member, which is different than recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields judging membership, as required under 
the regulation. While the Petitioner's senior membership application shows his references, the 
Petitioner did not establish that these individuals actually judged his senior membership, nor did he 
demonstrate that IEEE requires national or international experts to judge senior membership. 8 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish he fulfills this criterion. 
C. Published Materials 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]]ublished material about the alien in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field 
for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation." 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on an article, 
I I dated on I I 2017, and posted on medicaleconomics.com. However, the 
article does not include an author, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Although the 
7 We note that we have recognized fellow membership with IEEE to meet this regulatory criterion. IEEE fellow 
membership requires, in part, that a nominee have "accomplishments that have contributed importantly to the advancement 
or application or engineering, science and technology, bringing the realization of significant value to society." See IEEE's 
Steps to Become an IEEE Fellow, www.ieee.org. 
8 Compare to the fellow level, which nominations are judged by an IEEE council of experts and a committee of current 
IEEE fellows, www.ieee.org. 
5 
Petitioner provided an editorial board screenshot for the website, the Petitioner did not show who 
authored the material. Because the regulation requires the Petitioner to include the author of the 
material, the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this portion of the criterion. 
Moreover, the article does not reflect published material about the Petitioner relating to his work. 
Instead, the article is about hackers and medical practices, in which the Petitioner supplied a quote for 
article's topic. The article does not report, discuss, or cover him or otherwise reflect published material 
about him. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]]ublished 
material about the alien." 9 We consider the term "published material about the alien" using its 
ordinary, common meaning. See, e.g., Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) ("A 
fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted 
as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning .... "). In this case, the article his about 
hacking into medical practices rather than about the Petitioner and his work. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe 
v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
regarding a show are not about the actor). 
As such, the Petitioner did not show he meets this criterion. 
D. Scholarly Articles 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly 
articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." The Petitioner 
argues that his presentations, such as I 12017," qualify for this criterion. Examples 
of scholarly article authorship include publications in professionally-relevant peer-reviewed journals 
and published conference presentations at conferences. 10 
In this case, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his presentations were actually published in 
publications or other major media. Specifically, the Petitioner submitted screenshots of synopses or 
announcements of his presentations without establishing their publications. The Petitioner, for 
example, did not provide transcripts of his presentations and show they were published in professional 
or major trade material or posted in major media. Moreover, although some of the screenshots contain 
links to the presentations, the Petitioner did not offer the actual material or transcripts from the links. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted examples of others referencing his presentations in their own 
works. However, without documentation of his actual published presentations, the Petitioner did not 
show that his talks and speeches qualify as evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish he satisfies this criterion. 
9 See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (indicating that USCIS determines whether the published 
material was related to the person and the person's specific work in the field for which classification is sought). 
10 See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
6 
E. Leading or Critical Roles 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." For 
a leading role, officers look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is (or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof 11 For a critical role, 
officers look at whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. 12 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for his criterion based on his leading and critical roles as a senior 
security specialist at ________ and references a letter from M-M-, product security 
director at D However, the letter does not contain detailed, specific information evidencing the 
Petitioner's leading or critical role. Instead, the letter makes broad statements without further 
elaborating and explaining how the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, discussed further 
below. 
At the outset, the letter briefly indicates the Petitioner's "leadership researching threats" and "critical 
leadership." However, M-M- does not further discuss or indicate how the Petitioner's role as a senior 
security specialist somehow resulted in the Petitioner serving in a leading role or performing in a 
leadership capacity. 
Likewise, M-M- made general claims regarding the Petitioner's critical roles without justifying her 
assertions. For instance, the letter claimed that the Petitioner "was key to ensuring medical security 
by conducting intensive review and penetration testing," "[h]]is extraordinary ability for addressing 
security issues has materially supported I I prosperity and the scaling of its innovations in health­
tech," and "[the Petitioner's] impactfol work has materially elevated and is still instructive to global 
peers, for its vital importance on personal human levels and its large-scale security infrastructure 
context." M-M- did not explain the effect of the Petitioner's review and penetration testing, how the 
Petitioner has materially supported prosperity, or the significance of the Petitioner's work on 
personal human levels and large-scale security infrastructure. 
Without specific, detailed information, M-M-'s general letter does not show the Petitioner's leading 
or critical role. 13 Moreover, Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show he fulfills this criterion. 
11 See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). 
12 Id. 
13 See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (indicating that this is one criterion where letters from 
persons with knowledge of the significance of the person's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful to officers in 
making this determination, so long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how 
the person's role for the organization, establishment, division, or department was leading or critical). 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish eligibility for any of the categories of evidence discussed above. 
Because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we need not decide on the Director's favorable conclusions for the judging and high 
salary criteria. We also need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 14 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification 
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. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 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. 
14 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
8