dismissed EB-1A Case: Software Development

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 06 111 51698 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
-, *."+'-- 
cX-. --- Ce-7 --- ,SLL- -.&-- 
obert P. ~kg-, &r 
YAdrninist r at ive Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Admnistrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U. S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner "meets four of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 recogmzed 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. Ij 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in hs or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
Ij 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on February 22,2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Senior Middleware Architect/Developer." Counsel states: 
[The petitioner] is co-founder, Director and VP of Technology of Agilepartner SA Luxembourg . . . . 
[The petitioner's] accomplishments include being a contributor of Software Development magazine, 
Page 3 
being the lead developer and project administrator of a main open-source project called NxBRE (a 
.NET business rule engine), . . . and judging and speaking in hs field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which class@cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director's decision concluded that the evidence submitted for this criterion was not primarily about the 
petitioner. We concur with the director's finding. On appeal, although counsel does not challenge this fmding, 
we will address the petitioner's evidence for ths criterion below. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in 
the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as 
major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the 
New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of 
significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted a June 2005 article published in Software Development entitled "Fresh Faces" that 
primarily discusses the winners of the 151h Annual Jolt and Productivity Awards. At the conclusion of the 
article, 26 individuals are identified as competition judges, one of whom is the petitioner. The petitioner also 
submitted evidence showing that the six authors of The Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture listed the 
petitioner's name in the guide's "Acknowledgments" section along with 13 other contributors who provided 
feedback for the publication. The preceding published materials, however, are not primarily about the 
petitioner. The plain language of the regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien." If the 
petitioner is not the primary subject of the material, then it is insufficient to meet ths criterion. 
- -- 
1 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 4 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article by Caspar Fall appearing in 
the January 2006 issue of Business Rules Journal that discusses the rationale for selection of petitioner's NxBRE 
software from among a list of three low-cost forward-chaining rule engines that were considered for a project 
for the Health Section of the Swiss Federal Statistics Office. The record, however, includes no evidence 
showing that Business Rules Journal has substantial national or international circulation or other evidence to 
demonstrate that this publication is considered to be a professional, major trade publication or other major 
media. Further, as the petitioner is not actually named in the article, we cannot conclude that it constitutes 
published material about him. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets th~s criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's particQation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an aZZied$eld of specification for which class$cation is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he served as judge for the 14' and 1 5th Annual Software 
Development magazine's Jolt and Productivity Awards in 2004 and 2005. Information in the record states 
that "Software Development is the leading magazine for software development managers . . . . Software 
Development is a monthly publication reachlng over 100,000 subscribers." A page fkom the June 2005 issue 
of Software Development states: "The Esteemed Judges - Software Development thanks these 26 gurus for 
dedicating three months to the evaluation process." The petitioner's name is listed on the page as one of the 
26 judges. 
The petitioner also submitted information printed from TechWeb ' s internet site stating: 
 "The Software 
Development Jolt Product Excellence and Productivity Awards are presented annually to products and books 
that have 'jolted' the industry by helping to create faster, easier and more efficient software." 
Information submitted by the petitioner from PR Newswire's internet site states: "For the past 15 years, 
Software Development Jolt Product Excellence and Productivity Awards have been presented annually to 
products, books and websites that have 'jolted' the industry by helping to create faster, easier and more 
efficient software." 
The director's analysis for this criterion concluded by stating: "The petitioner has not clearly established that 
he has judged internationally recognized competitions in his field." The criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
however, includes no requirement that the petitioner judge an internationally recopzed competition. Sect ion 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) specifically allow for evidence 
establishing "national" acclaim. Thus, the director's implication that international recoption is required to 
establish eligibility under this criterion is in error and the director's finding must therefore be withdrawn. We fmd 
that the petitioner's evidence meets ths criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the$eld. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he is the lead developer and project administrator of NxBRE, 
"a lightweight Business Rule Engine (aka Rule Based Engine) for the .NET platform, composed of a forward- 
chaining inference engine and an XML-driven flow control engine." The record reflects that the petitioner 
utilized SourceForge.net as an internet host site for the preceding Open Source software development 
project.2 An electronic message from SourceForge.net to the petitioner submitted in response to the director's 
request for evidence reflects that his project registration for the NxBRE software was approved in December 
2003. The electronic message further states: 
SourceForge.net maintains a large amount of documentation about the SourceForge.net site and 
services offered to hosted projects. 
SourceForge.net provides hosting solely for Open Source software development projects . . . . 
SourceForge.net provides a donation system that allows users and projects to accept donations on an 
opt-in basis. 
2 
 Using the internet address for SourceForge.net identified in the documentation submitted by the petitioner, 
the AAO accessed information about its web site at http://sourcefor~e.net/docs/about on July 12,2007, which 
states: 
SourceForge.net is the world's largest Open Source software development web site, hosting more 
than 100,000 pro~ects and over 1,000,000 registered users with a centralized resource for managing 
projects, issues, communications, and code. SourceForge.net has the largest repository of Open 
Source code and applications available on the Internet, and hosts more Open Source development 
products than any other site or network worldwide. SourceForge.net provides a wide variety of 
services to projects we host, and to the Open Source community. 
SourceForge.net provides free hosting to Open Source software development projects. The essence of 
the Open Source development model is the rapid creation of solutions within an open, collaborative 
environment. Collaboration within the Open Source community (developers and end users) promotes 
a higher standard of quality, and helps to ensure the long-term viability of both data and applications. 
Open Source software is also gaining increased momentum in the enterprise. Commonly cited reasons 
for the growing interest, acceptance, and even preference for Open Source products include low cost, 
high value, quality and reliability, security, increased freedom and flexibility (both hardware and 
software), and adherence to open standards. Additional information regarding the Open Source 
concept can be found on the Open Source Initiative (0%) web site. 
Page 6 
The Project Admin page for your project is the best place to start. Please ensure that you have 
established a suitable Public Description for your project, and have categorized your project with in 
the Trove . . . . 
Enjoy the system, and please tell others about SourceForge.net. 
The petitioner submitted statistics printed from SourceForge.net7s internet site reflecting 20'9 1 9 "downloads" 
relating to the petitioner's NxBRE project since its inception in December 2003. These statistics may indicate 
that the petitioner's software has been downloaded by potential users for evaluation, but there is no evidence 
of its widespread implementation or any indication that the field at large has somehow changed as a result of 
his software development work. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. The record here does not establish that 
the petitioner's work has made scholarly or scientific contributions of major significance to his field in a 
manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner also submitted a page consisting of seven brief testimonials that he compiled from alleged 
users of hls NxBRE software, but their full names, employers, and contact information were "withheld per 
request of the users." For example, one of the testimonials states: "Our company is looking at various 
options for implementing a rules engine. We have done a cursory inspection of NxBRE and believe that it 
could meet our needs." Another testimonial states: "I want to use visio file (.vdx) to express my business 
rules. 
 But I don't know what NxBRE supports." There is no indication that either of the preceding 
organizations actually utilized the petitioner's software for their business operations. Further, there is no 
means through which CIS may contact the seven individuals offering the testimonials to confirm their 
statements. Nevertheless, we do not find that these seven testimonials selected by the petitioner are adequate 
to demonstrate that his NxBRE software qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the software 
development field. 
The petitioner's submission also included what he identifies as a "web reference" from TheServerSide.NET 
stating: "Csharp-Source.Net has published a categorized list of C# based open source projects and their 
locations. The lists includes [sic] well knows [sic] projects such as NUnit, NAnt, and NHibemate as well as 
lesser know [sic] projects like NChart, iTextSharp, and NxBRE." The observation that the petitioner's project 
is "lesser" known is not consistent with "sustained national or international acclaim" or a contribution of 
"major significance in the field." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted two letters of support that 
specifically address the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 
Caspar Fall, a consultant for ELCA, an information technology consulting company in Lausanne, 
Switzerland, states: 
Page 7 
[The petitioner] has made an original technical contribution of major significance to the field. As the 
administrator and lead developer of the NxBRE project, [the petitioner] has delivered the first open 
source business rules engine for the .NET platform. He has performed an exceptional work as a 
Software Engineer in order to guarantee the best possible quality for his product. He has also 
invested a tremendous amount of energy to support and help others to implement ths rules engine, 
including me. This has contributed to make the result of his work a solid rule engine that companies 
can consider using for their best benefit. As a matter of fact, rules engine [sic] increase the flexibility 
of software applications by better allowing business needs to be translated into executable actions. 
Companies using such technologies can expect a significant improvement of their capacity to react to 
changes of existing business rules or to the need to introduce new rules because a business rules 
engine encourages Software Engineers not to include business rules in their code. NxBRE allows 
programmers and companies to achieve this objective of separation of code and rules. 
Since the inception of the NxBRE project in December 2003, [the petitioner] has regularly released 
source code and running software in SourceForge, making his work available for usage and review by 
his peers. It is to be noted that [the petitioner] has also contributed code to other projects like Egothor 
or jinFORM, making his work available for the community of Software Engineers. The process of 
contributing code to the open source community helps to improve the overall quality of projects and 
permits to add new features, as found required by Software Engineers. Generally speaking, the IT 
industry beneficiates [sic] from this lund of contribution, as code re-use allows saving time and 
money. 
As stated under a previous criterion, the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a 
paper authored by Caspar Fall discussing ELCA's selection of a rule engine for managing online annual 
questionnaires submitted to the Health Section of the Swiss Federal Statistics Office. The petitioner's 
NxBRE software was chosen from a list of three low-cost forward-chaining rule engines that were initially 
considered by ELCA. However, the petitioner has not shown how the greater field has changed as a result of 
his work, beyond the incremental improvements in business processes that are expected from an original 
software product. Nor is there substantive evidence showing that NxBRE has accrued substantial benefits to 
numerous organizations beyond the Health Section of the Swiss Federal Statistics Office as would be 
expected of an original contribution of major significance in the software development field. We accept that 
the petitioner's NxBRE software is original and presents incremental benefits to its users, but there is no 
evidence showing that this work or his having "contributed code to other projects" rise to the level of a 
contribution of major significance in his field. 
consultant for the European Parliament, states that he is "currently working with [the petitioner] and can attest 
to the extraordinary level of his work." Matthieu Razafindrakoto further states: 
[The petitioner] has made an original technical and business contribution of major sigmficance to the 
field in his region. As a Co-Founder of Agilepartner S.A. in Luxembourg and a personal member of 
the Agile Alliance, [the petitioner] was among the very firsts [sic] to promote the Agile Methods in 
his region. These recent methodologies contribute to make software engineering more efficient and 
Page 8 
contribute to a greater satisfaction of the customers. Unfortunately, resistance to change and 
ignorance are preventing the full adoption of these methods: trusted local experts are needed to 
remove these barriers. [The petitioner], leveraging the international recognition he gained from his 
writings and open source projects, has been able to put forward these new ideas in a credible manner. 
[The petitioner] has also launched the Agile Interest Group of Luxembourg to better promote these 
practices among Software Engineers and business-decision makers. 
in "the Agile Methods," nor does he credit the petitioner as being the original creator of these software 
engineering methodologies. Promoting technological innovations developed by others does not constitute an 
original contribution of major significance in the field attributable to the p 
 ner 
were to establish that he invented "the Agile Methods," according to 
 the 
methodologies put forward by the petitioner have not been fully adopted in his region. 
 Nor is there 
independent evidence establishing the national or international significance of these methodologies. 
In this case, the letters of support provided by the petitioner's professional contacts are not sufficient to meet 
this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornm. 1988). 
However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance that one would expect of a software developer who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a printout from a Google internet search 
of "NxBRE" that identified 854 results which counsel claims shows the "popularity" of the petitioner's 
software. Such search results are often duplicative or not primarily about the particular object of the search. 
For these reasons, the number of results generated from an internet search is generally not a reliable gauge of 
impact in one's field. Moreover, as section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires "extensive documentation" of 
sustained national or international acclaim, we find that the petitioner's failure to provide the actual 
documentation for the vast majority of the 854 results identified the Google search is a significant omission 
from the record. Without reviewing the original documents identified in the search, we cannot conclude that 
the petitioner's NxBRE software is a contribution of major significance in the software development field. 
Further, aside from SourceForge.net, the petitioner does not provide information regarding the stature of the 
websites in whch his software product is mentioned. 
Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential or highly 
acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that his work rises to the level of a contribution of 
major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets ths criterion. 
Page 9 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of a scholarly article appearing in the March 2002 issue 
of Software Development magazine entitled "Losing the Coding Millstone." As stated previously, 
information in the record states that "Software Development is the leading magazine for software 
development managers . . . . Software Development is a monthly publication reaching over 100,000 
subscribers." Therefore, we find that this one article appears to constitute qualifying evidence for this 
criterion. 
However, none of the remaining published materials (petitioner's exhibits K, L, M, N, 0, P, and Q) written by 
the petitioner for Software Development constitute scholarly articles. All of these exhibits consist of no more 
than a half page of text. "All roads Lead to Rome" (exhibit K) is a twelve-sentence anecdotal piece about 
"bad" programming code. "SOAPscope 2.0" (ehbit L) is an eight-sentence product evaluation. "He Who 
Must Not Be Named" (exhibit M) is a seventeen-sentence anecdotal piece about a problematic billing system 
on which the petitioner worked. This piece appeared under the heading "Project Horrors" in the October 
2004 issue. "Outsourcing in Europe" (exhlbit N) was a letter to Software Development written by the 
petitioner appearing in the magazine's "Feedback" section.' "Hibernate 2.1" (exhibit 0) is a nine-sentence 
product evaluation in which Jboss' receipt of a Jolt Award is announced. Similarly, "Census 6.0" (exhibit P) 
is a five-sentence product evaluation in which MetaQuest Software's receipt of a Jolt Award is announced. 
We find that exhibits "0" an "P" are far more relevant to the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), a 
criterion that we find the petitioner has already met.4 Finally, "The Invisible DBA (exhibit Q) is a thirteen- 
sentence anecdotal piece about a database administrator who swindled his clients by billing them for time not 
worked. We find that the preceding exhibits are not scholarly articles in the field of software development. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the authorshp of "scholarly" articles in the field. 
However, the above described materials are anecdotal narratives rather than academic or "scholarly" articles. In 
contrast, the article contained in Software Development is considered to be scholarly. However, a single scholarly 
article does not satisfy the plain language of this criterion which specifically requires evidence of "scholarly 
articles." Moreover, as the one scholarly article is from March 2002, it is not indicative of "sustained" national or 
international acclaim in the petitioner's field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfrmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
3 
 Underneath the petitioner's comments, it states: "EXPRESS YOURSELF: Software Development 
welcomes readers' letters. 
 Writers must provide their full name, title, company, mailing address, and 
telephone number. . . . [W]e value the views of readers who send us their comments. Send letters to 
FEEDBACK, Software Development magazine . . . ." 
4 
 It should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because 
separate criteria exist for judging the work of others and authorship of scholarly articles, CIS clearly does not 
view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an 
alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
Page 10 
The director found the petitioner had failed to establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel states: "The petitioner played a leading role for Dennemeyer & Company, a leading 
worldwide Intellectual Property services provider, by developing, optimizing and customizing intellectual 
property management software . . . . In addition, the petitioner played a leading role for the European 
Parliament as a Lead Java Architect." 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of hs role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
We accept that the European Parliament is an organization with a distinguished reputation, however, the self- 
serving material printed directly from Dennemeyer & Company's internet site is not adequate to demonstrate 
that it has a distinguished reputation. 
As evidence of the nature of the petitioner's role for the European Parliament and Dennemeyer & Company, 
he submitted letters of support dated April 3,2006 from 
 f Sogeti-Transiciel, who is 
not an official representative of the European 
 ow a Senior Developer at 
FTI Consulting, whose resume indicates that he has not worked for Dennemeyer & Company since 2000, 
when he worked there as a "Software Engineer Team Member." 
[The petitioner] has been a Lead Java Architect for the last four years at the European Parliament. I 
can attest that there is a "before" and an "after" his arrival, as his action has tremendously improved 
the work of nearly two hundred Software Engineers. On top of that, [the petitioner] is in charge of 
evaluating and giving a golno-go on all Java middleware projects done in Belgium, Luxembourg and 
France; this position allows him to guarantee the consistence and alignment of all the strategic 
development in the Parliament. His outstanding contribution to the central information technology 
department has helped the European Parliament to rationalize and optimize software development 
activities, leading to cost reduction and quality increase. His natural leadership and the trust he 
inspires in his peers have made hm an authoritative figure in ths transnational organization. 
The record includes no evidence originating from an official of the European Parliament indicating that the 
petitioner performs in a leading or critical role for that organization. For example, there is no evidence 
indicating that the petitioner's role was of significantly greater importance that that of the numerous other 
information technology professionals employed there. While we accept that the petitioner has provided Java 
software support for the European Parliament, the record falls well short of demonstrating that his role for thls 
governmental body was leading or critical. 
Page 11 
[The petitioner] was a Software Development Manager for Dennemeyer & Co. (a leading worldwide 
Intellectual Property services provider). He played a leading role in developing, optimizing and 
customizing an intellectual property management software that has been installed worldwide to 
handle critical data. Organizations that have beneficiated from his work include, but are not limited 
to: GE, BMW, L'Oreal and Nestle. 
While the petitioner may have contributed to an intellectual property management software project at 
Dennemeyer & Company, the record does not establish that his role for this organization was leading or 
critical. The record includes no evidence originating from the company itself indicating the petitioner's dates 
of employment or job title. Nor is there evidence showing that his role was of significantly greater 
importance than that of the other software developers employed by the company (including individuals such 
as - 
In the preceding instances, the record does not demonstrate that the petitioner was responsible for the 
organizations' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" or 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
ths criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate hs receipt of a 
major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished hrnself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have acheved sustained national or international acclaim or to be with the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achevements set hm significantly above 
almost all others in hs field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.