dismissed EB-1A Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11283620 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a director of engineering for an e-commerce company, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(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 Petitioner 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification , of which he must meet at 
least three. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met this burden. Accordingly , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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. 
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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets 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 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is currently employed as a director of software engineering with 
I l where he has worked in H-lB nonimmigrant status since October 2015. He joined 
~----~lwith 15 years of pro ressive ex erience in the software en ineering field, most recently 
as an assistant vice president fo where he worked from 2014 
to 2015. The Petitioner has a bachelor of technology degree from ~-----------~ University in India. 
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 ten alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have met three criteria, summarized below: 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria pertaining to leading or critical roles and high 
salary. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the original contributions criterion and 
asserts that the Director did not properly weigh the submitted evidence of his business and engineering 
related contributions and the significance of these contributions in his field. 
We have reviewed all the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. The Petitioner meets only the two criteria 
granted by the Director. We will discuss the remaining claimed criterion below. 
Evidence of the individual'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). 
2 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field. Major significance in the field may be shown 
through evidence that his original contributions have been widely accepted and implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance in the field. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he provided ample evidence of his original contributions to the 
software engineering field and asserts that the Director failed to discuss the detailed information 
contained in letters from his current and former employers, submitted at the time of filing. The record 
also includes two expert opinion letters from university professors in the computer science field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's contributions during his tenure ate=] he provided a letter from 
I ts Senior Vice President - Head of Digital Product Strategy.I ~ indicates 
that he previously served as Head of Product Development withinl business 
division, noting he frequently interacted with the Petitioner, who he describes as "the lead 
development engineer" within the division and "one of the firm's most important technical 
contributors to the broader suite of core innovative products for our department." He describes 
I I as a "single integrated messaging and connectivity engine" that was "specially designed 
for asset managers, insurance companies, banks ... and other technology platforms." 
~---~I goes on to describe some of the Petitioner's contributions to the division, noting that he 
"engineered and developed a remarkable and outstanding multi-bank event management and 
notification workflow solution designed to simplify the most challenging corporate actions lifecycle 
processes." He explains the complexity of the problem addressed by this workflow solution, and notes 
that the system "adds a strategic advantage" compared to "traditional systems." He describes its 
features, and states that there are "no off-the-shelf software solutions available that can match these 
capabilities and provide this end to end workflow." I I also credits the Petitioner with 
developing "an advanced configurable rule-based engine to process complex rules to handle data from 
several message systems" and describes the capabilities of this solution. 
While this evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner made original engineering contributions toe=] s 
I F division that benefited the company and its clients, it does not establish how such 
contributions to~s products have remarkably impacted or influenced the field or industry.c=J 
I I praises the Petitioner's "in-depth knowledge on building scalable real time systems and his 
ability to lead a team to successfully [] execute on his vision to drive significant business upside" as 
well as his ability "to delight customers with pioneering solutions to challenging problems." He also 
generally states that the types of solutions the Petitioner developed "can be useful for systems and 
organizations that exchange data," but does not elaborate on their impact on the field. In order to 
establish that his contributions ate=] satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that his 
contributions have been widely implemented in the field or have otherwise been recognized for their 
major significance. The record does not include, for example, evidence that other com
1
anies have 
adopted the types of engineering solutions he helped develop during his tenure at The plain 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
3 
language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact 
beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 
(D.D.C. 2013). While the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner possesses technological knowledr 
and skills that enabled him to solve engineering challenges faced byc=]and its clients,! s 
letter does not establish how his contributions impacted the field. 
In the RFE, the Director provided the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional independent, 
objective evidence, beyond testimonial letters, to establish that his contributions have significantly 
influenced the field. The Petitioner's response to the RFE included two expert opinion letters from 
university professors, which we will discuss further below, and copies of previously submitted evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner now asks that we consider "several industry articles" intended to provide 
supplemental explanations of the im act of his work on the field. The evidence includes: 1 an October 
2013 ress release titled 
'· 2 a 2015 ress release titled ~-----t 
and 3 a 2018 ress release 
published by Business Insider, which announces the company's release of.__ _____ __, 
Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first 
time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). Further, even if we review this evidence along withl ts letter, the record 
would not support a determination that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance 
while employed b~ I The 2013 press release pre-dates the Petitioner's employment withe=] by 
a year and the 2018 press release post-dates his tenure by over two years. We also note that the spepi.fi.c; 
~ts mentioned in these press releases! I are not referenced byLJ 
L___J in his letter. Finally, while these product releases were deemed sufficiently significant to 
warrant the company's issuance of a press release, the press releases alone do not demonstrate how 
these technologies remarkably impacted the field. 
The referenced 2015 press release coincides with the Petitioner's one- ear tenure withc=]but marks 
the automation of 1.3 million fund orders "throu h th s 
I I offshore fund platform andL...---r---i-------' over a period of three years (since 2012). 
However, sincec=]s relationship with~_~predated the Petitioner's tenure with the company, 
the press release alone does not establish that his contributions to the existing! I platform 
remarkably impacted the industry and such contributions were not addressed inl Vs letter. 
The Petitioner has also provided two letters that directly address his contributions during his tenure at 
I I. is described in the record asl I retailer of1 I sports 
merchandise L-------------~__J ............................. ~ofessional sports leagues and for over 
300 collegiate and professional team properties . .__ ____ _., the company's Chief Technology & 
Product Officer, credits the Petitioner with developing new capabilities for itsl I 
Platform which have significantly contributed to the company's revenue growth. He explains that the 
Petitioner's unique combination of software en ineering skills enabled his design and development of 
I I and which have enabled the com an to offer fans 
I I gear ~------------------------------~ 
4 
D and other major sports franchises. He states that "80+ business managers working on 300+ sites 
use these tools on a regular basis." 
I !further describes these tools in considerable detail, noting that few engineers have the 
diverse skill set required to meet the company's technological challen es and attributing! I 
significant sales growth to the Petitioner's enhancements of its platform. He also 
discusses the Petitioner's work on the platform's~-----~system, noting that he developed 
a I I system" which he describes as a "unique solution which very few companies 
across the world have attempted." I I explains that thel I 
system the Petitioner built allowsl I payment systems to operate in a fall back mode and 
.__ __________________________________ ____. during 
primary gateway down times." 
The Petitioner also provided a letter form I • I Vice President of Product Technology at 
I l who states that he leads product management for all aspects ofi t cloud commerce 
platform. I I likd I highly praises the Petitioner's engineering talent and 
leadership abilities and discusses his contributions to the company's! I platform. He 
highlights thd I solution (noting the Petitioner solved a "problem that every payment 
accepting! I faces"), ~ I System ( a security feature that detects anomalies in user 
activities), and the Petitioner's integration ofl I risk analysis engine to protect the 
platform from abuse. 
The contributions described byl I an~ I are novel and innovative in that they 
fill the unique needs of the I I platform, and their letters establish that the Petitioner has 
performed in a critical capacity for the company. However, the record does not establish how such 
contributions have had a significant impact or influence on thel I software technology field 
outside of the company. The record does not establish, for example, that the Petitioner's enhancements 
to th~ I platform have generated widespread commentary or discussion in the field or that 
other I I companies have modeled their I I platforms on enhancements the 
Petitioner made to th~ I platform. 
A letter froml 6 business architect withl l also discusses the Petitioner's work 
in th~ I field.I !describes the Petitioner as "an avid open source contributor for 
many public open-source software libraries" and that states his work "is very significant to a large 
scale platform which deals with data." He credits the Petitioner with: designing and implementing a 
scalable platform called! Ito power business analytics; designing dynamic configuration 
capabilities and an intelligent! I that allow an application/website behavior to be 
changed dramatically; developing tracking software that can benefit "many small scale-to-medium 
I !companies"; and introducing speedy checkout tol !checkout payment flows. 
With respect tol I paymentsJ I states that the "integration models and interfaces 
built by [the Petitioner] are significantly helping! I companies the way [sic] customers can 
make payments on any! I websites in a more secure and simplified way." However, he does 
not offer any specific examples, and the record does not contain supporting evidence, of how these 
technologies have been adopted by any companies other than the Petitioner's own employer. Simply 
stating that the Petitioner developed novel solutions that could be useful to other organizations is not 
5 
sufficient to show that his work has already proven to be remarkably impactful or influential in the 
field. 
Finally, we have considered the expert opinion letters of two professors of computer science . USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 
I&N Dec . 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility . The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
ln his letter,! lo~ I University summarizes ilielletters g[°vided byD 
I ~ and I and the contributions the Petitioner made t{LJ and He concludes 
that his contributions are beneficial to the companies he has worked for and "will have lasting effects 
on the industry as a whole ." He states that "[t]his is evident based on a simple comparison of similar 
platforms at other companies" noting that some features the Petitioner developed ad I are "some 
of the first to be contained in technologies of this nature and have the potential to be patented." 
Although his letter supports a finding that the Petitioner's contributions are novel, he does not state 
that those contributions have already impacted or influenced the broader industry . 
.__ _____ ___.I Professor and Chair of Computer Science at University! I 
indicates that the Petitioner "has made major original business contributions m the form of 
groundbreaking technology innovations in the field o~ I" Like ________ he 
discusses the letters provided by the Petitioner's employers, noting that the letters establish his ability 
to develop specific technology solutions that "improve the efficiency and overall profitability of 
standard processes," and noting that such solutions have "far-reaching significance." He further states 
that such achievements "are far outside the ken of the vast majority of developers and software 
engineers, and as such extend their influence into the industry at large." However, these statements 
are general and do not specify how the Petitioner's contributions have been of "major significance" in 
the field within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v) . 
,___ __ ____.lalso highlights the Petitioner's work onl I atl I noting that "this 
contribution extends far outside of its immediate application" at his employer. He notes that 
I I is a "cutting edge security solution" used inl I and retail banking, and states 
that the Petitioner's I I solution stands out as among the 
leading advancements in this area in the short time since the development of the I I 
technology" and "bears major significance for the over......,....__ ___ ..... industry" by "adding to the 
growing number of technical improvements in the area o nd increasing competition in 
the same." Although! I refers to the Petitioner's work on.__ __ _. payment system as a 
"leading advancement" that has added to the incremental innovations in a growing area of technology, 
the record does not contain supporting evidence or specific examples showing that this advancement 
has already extended "far outside its immediate application" ad I such that it could be deemed 
an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
In summary, the submitted letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or impact his work atOandl I 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 
6 
subsequent work add value. 2 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are 
not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 3 Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
3 Id. at 9. 
7