dismissed EB-1A Case: Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25983002 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 7, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior project manager , 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3) . The matter 
is now before us on appeal. We decline the Petitioner's request for oral argument. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3(b ). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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 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 , provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 their 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 they 
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). 1 
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). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
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). In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner 
met the criteria relating to judging and high salary, but determined that he did not satisfy the awards, 
membership, original contributions of major significance, and leading or critical role criteria. After 
reviewing all the evidence, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that he satisfies the requirements 
of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien '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) 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 3 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 4 
Here, the Petitioner rovided evidence indicatin that received an award for "Outstandin Product 
Design" from m 
February 2020. The Petitioner also submitted various screenshots from I !website that focus on 
the organization's yearly conferences, but this documentation does not relate to his specific award or 
demonstrate its significance in the field of endeavor. The record does not include evidence 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (indicating that USCTS officers should first 
"[a]ssess whether evidence meets regulatory criteria: Determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, which evidence 
submitted by a petitioner objectively meets the parameters of the regulatory description that applies to that type of 
evidence"). 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (stating that in the final merits determination, USCTS officers should 
evaluate all the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if a petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence. the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
4 Id. 
2 
demonstrating that the Petitioner's award was recognized by the field in general rather than mainly 
limited to I I conference participants. Nor does the evidence show that any media coverage or 
attention relating to the Petitioner's award rises to the level of national or international recognition. 
Without further evidence regarding its national or international significance in his field, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his award is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence 
in the field. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he is a member of the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He also presented information about the IEEE's membership 
criteria. The Director determined that these criteria (including years of experience, publication of 
papers, or development of courses) did not rise to the level of outstanding achievements. The 
Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination on appeal. Without evidence indicating that 
the selection process for IEEE requires outstanding achievements and that admission to membership 
is judged by recognized national or international experts, we agree with the Director and conclude that 
the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. 5 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner provided letters of support from colleagues discussing his 
projects for his employer and its clients. The Director addressed each of these letters and determined 
that they did not show the impact of the Petitioner's work at a level indicating original contributions 
of major significance in the field. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner requests that we consider updated recommendation letters from three 
of his colleagues. As discussed below, these letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor 
does the record include adequate corroborating documentation, to demonstrate the nature of specific 
"original" contributions that the Petitioner has made to the field that have been considered to be of 
major significance. 
A letter from O-P-, a senior technology architect with N-M- Inc., states that he and the Petitioner 
worked together at N-M- for six years. O-P- asserts that the Petitioner's work is "of major significance 
in his overall field due to his original contribution in building niche product/process not only in N-M-
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
3 
Inc., but with other organizations as well like H- Inc. who got benefited with [the Petitioner's] highly 
experienced problem-solving skills." 6 Here, the lack of specific, detailed information does not show 
how the Petitioner's past work at N-M- Inc. or H- Inc. constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. In addition, while 0-P- contends that 
the Petitioner's work in machine learning and artificial intelligence helped build a process technology 
that N-M- utilizes for servicing thousands of its customers/users seamlessly, he does not explain how 
this technology has impacted the overall field rather than being limited to N-M-' s customers and users. 
In his letter, A-A-, a senior product engineering manager with C- company, asserts that the Petitioner 
has contributed to C- company, a technology services and consulting business, as a subject matter 
expert in its cloud automation/integration engineering department. A-A indicates that the Petitioner 
helped his "department to achieve best performing revenue earning in C- company. [The Petitioner] 
developed multiple products for C- company ( such as I 
I I etc.) used by C- company clients for their business needs with reduced cost and quick to 
market." The Petitioner's evidence, however, does not show that his work on these products has 
affected his industry in a substantial way or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that his original contributions at C­
company have influenced the information technology industry to the extent that they are of major 
significance in his field. 
Additionally, a letter from G-M-, a researcher with M-M- company, states that the Petitioner 
"conducted a few conferences in my company . . . . He explained how we can upgrade our technology 
to take benefits using machine learning and artificial intelligence. He showed his previously 
developed products used by his company and their clients to fulfill goals of fixing repetitive problems 
using AI & machine learning." G-M- further asserts that M-M- company "started using [the 
Petitioner's] ideas in our company and getting better result in very short span of time," but he did not 
offer specific examples of how Petitioner's work has risen to the level of a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact that the Petitioner's work has had in the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how 
a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. 7 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 8 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The US. Att 'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without sufficient information and evidence demonstrating that 
his work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
6 The Petitioner's resume indicates that he has worked on a project for H- Inc. since July 2021. 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
8 Id. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, a(J'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
4 
Evidence that the alien 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) 
To qualify under this criterion, a petitioner must show that they played a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment, and that that organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. When evaluating whether a role is leading, we look at whether the evidence establishes 
that the person is or was a leader within the organization, or a department or division thereof A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish that a role is or was leading. For a critical role, 
we 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. 9 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he has performed in a leading or critical role for C- company. 10 
His appellate submission includes a letter from D-R-, a human resources representative with C­
company, stating: 
As Manager-Projects, [the Petitioner] was responsible for critical [sic] in his field and 
for organizations (C- company and clients). He was responsible for completing the 
project lifecycle including project planning, scope/ schedule/ resource/ 
finance/stakeholder management and cross functional team management. He was 
responsible for planning project approach .... 
As Sr. Manager - Projects, [the Petitioner] is responsible for critical [sic] in his field 
and for organizations (C- company and clients). He is responsible for technical 
delivery of portfolios that span a broad range of systems and wide spectrum of 
technologies. He is responsible for the growth of client relationship and rapid business 
expansion within assigned accounts. 
The Petitioner also points to the letter from A-A- which asserts that the Petitioner "is one of our 
topmost performing critical employees in C- company." A-A- further states: 
I witness many projects in past where C- company stake was on risk, we were almost 
losing business to other competitors due to high escalation from client related to work 
deliverables, tight timeliness and team management/orchestration issues .... As soon 
as we deployed [the Petitioner] for helping existing project team, we started getting 
good results day-to-day. . . . [The Petitioner] helped us in understanding grass root 
problems, motivate/ orchestrate project team to take best out of them . . . . We saved 
multiple such projects in past because of [the Petitioner's] excellence in his field .... 
While the letters from D-R- and A-A- indicate that the Petitioner has effectively managed his 
"assigned accounts" and "projects," their statements are not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's role for C- company was leading or critical. Their letters help show that the Petitioner 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
10 Here, the Petitioner claims a leading or critical role for his company rather than for a department or division within his 
company. Furthermore. even ifhe had claimed a leading or critical role for his particular department, which he has not, 
he has not demonstrated that it has a distinguished reputation. 
5 
performed in a leading or critical role for his particular accounts and projects, but they do not show 
that his role was leading or critical for the company. For example, the Petitioner did not provide an 
organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where his role fit within the overall hierarchy 
of C- company to demonstrate a leading role. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that he has 
contributed to C- company in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of its business 
operations. 11 For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. In order to meet 
this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high relative to the 
compensation paid to others working in the field. 12 The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion 
based on his salary with C- company as a senior project manager. In response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), he provided his 2021 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, showing earnings of 
$118,355.78. The Petitioner's RFE response also included an October 2022 email from C- company 
stating that his salary was set to increase to $137,817.00 that same month. This salary increase, 
however, post-dates the filing of the petition. Eligibility, however, must be demonstrated at the time 
of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
As evidence that his salary is high relative to others in the field, the Petitioner presented information 
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing mean hourly wages for broad occupational 
groups such as management, business and financial operations, computer and mathematical, and 
architecture and engineering. In addition, he provided salary data from CareerOneStop.org, 
Indeed.com, and Glassdoor.com showing mean and median salary data for the positions of project 
management specialist, senior project manager, and senior manager. Regarding mean and median 
salary data, the Petitioner must submit evidence showing that he has earned a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration relative to others in his field rather than a salary that is above average or 
that places him in the top half of his field. While the information from CareerOneStop.org and 
Glassdoor.com also shows a salary range from low to high, the Petitioner's earnings of $118,355.78 
falls below the high range in both instances. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the broad BLS occupational groups and project 
management specialist position represent proper bases for comparison. The Petitioner must present 
evidence showing that he has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in comparison 
with those performing similar services in the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994) ( considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also 
Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary 
information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Here, the Petitioner has not established that the 
11 For instance, the Petitioner has not shown that the amount of revenue generated from the specific projects he has managed 
represents a significant percentage of C- company's reported earnings. 
12 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
6 
comparative salary data he offered shows that his earnings are high relative to others in his field. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding 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 for individuals progressing toward the top. See Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( 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 of Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 
2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very 
small percentage of prospective immigrants"); see also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 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")). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that 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 that the Petitioner has 
garnered sustained 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual 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. 
7