dismissed EB-1A Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5061459 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 5, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an online marketplace for vacation home rentals , seeks to classify the Beneficiary , a 
software engineer, 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 that the Beneficiary had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three. 
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 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 petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, an online marketplace for vacation home rentals, currently employs the Beneficiary as 
a software engineer in the area of risk engineering. The Beneficiary, a software engineer specializing 
in big data and machine learning, holds a master's degree in engineering from the University of 
I \and a bachelor of technology degree from the National Institute of Technology. 
I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must show that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Beneficiary 
met one of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to judging. The record 
contains evidence that the Beneficiary served as a judge for an engineering competition at the 
University of~ ______ __.and reviewed technical book chapters for software engineering 
texts. Accordingly, we agree with the Director. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to 
awards, membership, published materials, original contributions, leading or critical role, and salary. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Beneficiary meets an additional 
criteria relating to high salary or remuneration, but does not satisfy a third, as required. 
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) 
The Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's eligibility through his receipt of numerous awards and 
scholarships. Specifically, it references the Beneficiary's placement of second runner up at the 2017 
I I Hackathon, his fourth place win at the I IHackathon at Global Hack 
Week 2017, and his receipt of the 'I t award at Hack Y oci 
201 7. It farther argues he meets this criterion by virtue of his third place finish in the 
~e onl I and his 21st place finish in thel IIIacks 201 7: 
L___J competition. The Petitioner also refers to the Beneficiary's placement in the 2012 and 2013 
2 
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants' (CIMA) I I as Runner- up, National 
Final and winner I I respectively, as well as his win of the 20121 I 
Challenge It fina11y asserts that his scholarships from the I I Fqundation 
,,_____ ..... a__,nd thel I Education Trust, his qualification for the 2008 and 2009~-~JNational 
Olympiad in I I, and his certificate of merit for his results in thel !Association of Physics 
Teachers' National standard Examination in Physics demonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's placement as second runner-up finalist for the grand prize at the 2017 
~ Hackathon, the Petitioner provides, in relevant part, an article titled I I 
------------~------~ and one titled I I I' 1 However, the Petitioner does not provide documentation '------------------' sufficient to demonstrate that being named as the second runner-u finalist constitutes an award or 
prize. The first article mentioned above states 
I t The record lacks documentation, suc._h_a_s_a_w-ar_d_o_r_p_r-iz_e_c-ert-if-ic_a_t-es-,-o-r-o-th_e_r_m_a-te-r-ia_l__.s 
showing that placing as the second runner up constitutes an award or prize in this competition. We 
note that the record includes the official rules for the 2018 I I which lists prizes 
such as "Best in Show" or "Semi-Final Prize," and awards sponsored by entities such asl I 
and I I However, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how this evidence establishes that 
the Beneficiary's placement at the 2017 .__ ________ __, is indicative of a nationally or 
internationally recognized award. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's.__ __________ ~ prize at Hack Your Tomorrow 2017, the 
Petitioner provides a printout about the competition from http://hackyourtomorrow.com. Here the 
criterion requires that the Petitioner provide documentation showing that the Beneficiary has received 
an award. However, the Petitioner has not done so. Specifically, the printout does not identify any 
winners, and the Petitioner provides no other documentation, such as media, a copy of the award, or 
other meaningful evidence, corroborating its assertion that the Beneficiary and his team were 
recipients of the referenced award. Moreover, the Petitioner does not submit evidence, such as media 
showing that thel laward is nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of software engineering. 
As it relates to the Beneficiary's 4th place win in the I IHackathon at Global Hack Week 
2017 competition, the Petitioner submits a document from medium.com titled I I 
.__ _________ _. Global HackWeek, 2017," information on the judges, and a letter of 
reference from the Beneficiary's teammate,.__ ______ ___, head of product and growth at 
I I The medium.com article confirms that the Beneficiary, I I and a third team 
member received $3,000 Google credits for placin fourth at the referenced competition with their 
application! I The article notes, from which 
the judges selected five winners. I nlso describes the .__ ___ __,application and the 
Petitioner's role in its development in his letter, stating, "[the Beneficiary] ingeniously came up with 
the technical architecture" and "identified the right components to use and was able to build a service 
oriented architecture for the application." A beneficiary may be considered to be a recipient of a group 
1 The Petitioner also includes the official rules for t~~e........_20"""1...,,8.u.l ________ __,ldiscussed below, a printout from 
inviting participants to the 2018 l I Hackathon, and Wikipedia article about 'i=1====:;-,-
3 
award if they are integral to the group's winning of that award. Here the record reflects that the 
Beneficiary was integral to the winning application's development. Accordingly we consider him a 
recipient of the award. I I also indicates that this work was mentioned several times in the 
press "including atl I Sep 2017 in 
NDTV, and .__ _________ ____.Sep 2017 inl I." While the Petitioner provides 
both a link to youtube.com for and screenshots of the first television program, we note that the 
evidence indicates this video was viewed less than 500 times at the time of filing. This evidence of a 
single television program about the award with relatively low viewership statistics does not support 
the Petitioner's assertion that it is nationally recognized. In addition, the record lacks evidence of the 
second interview beyond the second youtube.com link, and the Petitioner does not show how this 
second interview demonstrates the award is nationally recognized, as required. 
The Petitioner further argues that the Beneficiary's third place win in the ~---------~ 
~--------~ meets this criterion. Specifically, it argues that the fact that the competition 
"included some of the world's most recognized data science minds of their generations" and was 
"sponsored by highly reputable British governmental agencies" demonstrates the Beneficiary's receipt 
of an internationally recognized award. Here the record reflects the Beneficiary's receipt of this award, 
as it contains an e-mail confirming that the Beneficiary placed third and a printout from 
datascience.org corroborating his third place win. However, the Petitioner does not show that the third 
place award the Beneficiary received is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field of software engineering. Specifically, the web printout identifies and provides a brief profile for 
the first and second place winners of the competition and indicates that the Defence Science and 
Technology Laboratory (DSTL) is involved with the competition. 2 However, the Petitioner does not 
demonstrate how the Beneficiary's competitors' backgrounds or DSTL's involvement with the 
competition are indicative of the award being internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
software engineering. 3 The Petitioner does not submit other evidence to support its assertion that this 
award is so recognized. 
With respect to theO Hacks 2017: Competition the Petitioner submits an e-
mail thanking the Beneficiary for his participation in the~_J acks._____,, _____ _, llenging, 
and congratulating him for "being shortlisted in for c=)Hacks 2017 - Zonals." 
The Petitioner also provides a printout from www.hackerearth.com titled 
I t listing the Beneficiary as being in 21st place. W~e_n_o_t_e_t_h_a_t-th_1_· s_d_o_c_u_m-en-t~ 
indicates that this competition was a qualifying round, and "the top 20 participants (per zone) go to 
the next round." The document further indicates that there is a Final Hackathon. The Petitioner does 
not submit documentation to establish that the Bene
1
ficiar~ s 21st place finish in a qualifying round, or 
his being shortlisted for the second round of the acks competition, equates to receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award in the field of software engineering. 
The Petitioner also asserts the Beneficiary meets this criterion as he was the Runner- up,I 
I lat CMIA's 2012 Global Challenge, and the winner for~------~at~ i-ts_2_0-13~ 
2 While the Petitioner asseits that this competition is sponsored by the United Kingdom's Security Service, Mi5, the record 
lacks evidence supp01ting this claim. 
3 The Petitioner provides printouts from www.mi5.gov.uk describing the Security Service, Mi5, one of the competition's 
sponsors and from www.gov.uk discussing data scientist roles at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in the 
United Kingdom. 
4 
Global Challenge, and as winner of the 2012 ._I -----.-----'l=C=h=a=ll=en=g=e=-=-·---,It submits a copy of a 
certificate identifying the Beneficiary as a winner of the I I Challenge as well as 
rovides certificates from the 2012 and 2013 CIMA challen es, and an article titled 
'--------------------------~--------' published 
online at http://blog.lboro.ac.uk. This article describes the CIMA Global Business Challenge as "an 
international business competition" whose participants will "learn how to analyse and solve a real live 
business case study." The Petitioner does not show that certificates from a business competition are 
the equivalent of nationally or internationally recognized award in the field of software engineering. 
Even had it done so, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary played an integral role 
in these groups' receipt of said certificates, and thus can be considered a recipient, or how placing as 
a runner up in a national final constitutes a nationally or internally recognized award. Regarding the 
I I Challenge, the Petitioner does not provide documentation about this challenge to establish 
that this certificate constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in 
software engineering, as required. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based upon his scholarships, 
his qualification for the 2008 and 20091 National Olympiad inl [ and his certificate of 
merit for his results in thd !Association of Physics Teachers' National standard Examination in 
Physics. Regarding the Beneficiary's scholarships from thee=] and the Education 
Trust, the Petitioner submits an e-mail fromc=J identifying him as Scholar for the year 2013 
and a letter from the I I Education Trust awarding him a loan scholarship for 2013. 
However, this documentation does not establish that these scholarships were granted for excellence in 
the field of software engineering. Specifically, the De-mail provides that scholarship recipients 
are students who "exhibit scholastic excellence and demonstrate a strong sense of values, motivation 
and have the potential to become leaders in their chosen field" while thel I Education 
Trust letter indicates that the scholarship is provided for post-graduate studies abroad. Even had these 
documents demonstrated that these scholarships are for excellence in the field of software engineering, 
the record lacks evidence showing that they are nationally or internationally recognized awards or 
pnzes. 
With respect to the 2008 and 2009 I IN ational Olympiad in I l the record contains letters 
stating that the Beneficiary qualified to participate in these events, but does not indicate that he 
received an award or prize at these events. The record lacks evidence establishing that qualifying for 
these events is, in and of itself, an award or prize that is nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of software engineering. Similarly, the record contains a Certificate of Merit 
for the Beneficiary's "Statewise Top 1 %" placement in the National Standard Examination in Physics, 
but lacks evidence showing this to be an award that is nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of software engineering. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
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) 
5 
The Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion through his memberships in IVY, 
the Founders Network, Hive Global, and the Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations 
(HPAIR.) As it relates to the Founders Network, the Petitioner submits an e-mail confirming the 
Beneficiary's membership and a document titled "About Founders Network." While the former 
confirms his membership, the latter is not sufficient to demonstrate that this entity requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their field. 
Specifically, the stated membership criteria do not reflect a requirement that its members have 
outstanding achievements in the field of software engineering. Rather, the criteria include having "a 
long-term vision of building a lifelong peer mentorship community" and shared "values of 
authenticity, reciprocity, humility, and respect." Further, applicants should be "building a tech 
startup" 4 and "working on [their] start-up full-time" as well as "willing to pay annual membership 
dues." They must also "abide by our no selling policy" and be "a Native English speaker or a TOEFL 
score above 80." The Petitioner does not show how these requirements reflect outstanding 
achievements, nor does it provide other materials such as bylaws, organizational documents, or other 
relevant materials, demonstrating that membership in the Founders Network requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. Moreover, while the document states "[e]ach month our Membership 
Committee admits a new cohort of full-time tech founders who are nominated by an existing member," 
the Petitioner does not submit information on this committee, or otherwise demonstrate that it is 
comprised of nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field of software engineering, as 
required. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's membership in IVY, the Petitioner submits an e-mail from the SF 
Community Manager at IVY congratulating him on his approval to "join the IVY Family" and a 
document titled "IVY The Social University." To establish eligibility for this criterion, the 
documentation must be of the Beneficiary's membership in an association in the field for which 
classification sought, in the instant case, software engineering. Here the aforementioned document 
describes IVY as an entity whose "mission is to spark world changing collaborations" with 
"curriculum areas" of "entrepreneurship, arts & culture, social impact, policy, wellness, philosophy 
and science." The Petitioner does not demonstrate how this shows IVY to be an association in the 
field of software engineering. 
Even had it done so, we note that the Petitioner does not provide sufficient documentation to establish 
that membership in IVY is based upon the Beneficiary's outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the field of software engineering. The aforementioned 
document states that the membership process consists of an application and interview, after which the 
IVY Membership Committee makes a decision on the member, and provides a list of the current 
committee members. A page titled "IVY Membership Process" states, "[t]he most important 
requirement to become a member is the intellectual curiosity and a commitment to making a positive 
impact." The Petitioner does not show how intellectual curiosity or a commitment to making a positive 
impact represent outstanding achievements in his field of endeavor. The record lacks other materials, 
such as IVY' s bylaws or organizational documents that might demonstrate that IVY requires 
outstanding achievements of its members in software engineering. 
4 The document provides examples of tech staiiups including such as "enterprise or consumer software, IoT, clean or health 
tech. etc." 
6 
The Petitioner also asserts the Beneficiary's eligibility through Hive Global and the Harvard Project 
for Asian and International Relations (HP AIR). However, the record lacks evidence of his 
membership in these organizations. As it relates to Hive Global, the Petitioner submits a letter 
confirming the Beneficiary's acceptance into Hive Global's "3-day leadership training program," and 
a printout titled "Hive Global Leaders Program" from hive.org. This printout describes the program 
as being for "mission-driven leaders, innovators, and entrepreneurs" and "designed as an entry into a 
lifelong community of leaders." The Petitioner does not provide evidence, such as bylaws or other 
documentation, showing that the program extends membership to individuals, or otherwise 
demonstrating that participation in Hive Global' s leadership training program is the equivalent of such 
a membership. 
With respect to the HP AIR Asia Conference, the Petitioner submits a letter inviting the Beneficiary to 
attend its Asia Conference. It also provides a printout from hpair.org titled "About HP AIR" describing 
the conference as a "5-day academic program" whose attendees will gain exposure to "issues spanning 
multiple arenas, including political, social, economic, cultural, and business." However, the Petitioner 
does not demonstrate that the conference is an entity that extends membership to individuals, nor does 
it show how the Beneficiary's attendance at the conference constitutes such a membership. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation sufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
To establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner submits numerous articles 
that "highlight the significance and popularity of [the Beneficiary's] work" or mention "[the 
Beneficiary J's other projects." One set of articles referenced by the Petitioner in its appellate brief 
discuss the Beneficiar 's revious and current em lo ers' business activities. 5 For example, the 
article '~---------------------------~' published on 
bloomberg.com, discusses the Petitioner's acquisition of the Beneficiary's previous employer. 
Another article, '.__ ___________________ ____. reprinted on medium.com 
from the Wall Street Journal, discusses the Beneficiary's previous employer and its work, and features 
quotes from its founderJ I However, in order to establish eligibility for this criterion, 
the published material should be about the Beneficiary relating to his work in the field, not just about 
his employer. 6 Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe 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). 
5 While we discuss only a sampling of the aiticles here, we have reviewed all of the materials in the record. 
6 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 ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P o licyManual.html. 
7 
As an additional matter, while we consider bloomberg.com and the Wall Street Journal to be major 
media, the remainder of the articles are published at techcrunch.com, siliconangle.com, medium.com, 
and inc42.com. However, the record lacks evidence, such as circulation statistics or other relevant 
data, establishing that the on-line circulation for siliconangle.com, medium.com, and inc42.com is 
high relative to that of other websites, or information about the websites demonstrating that they are 
professional or major trade publications. 7 Regarding techcrunch.com, the Petitioner submits a 
Wikipedia article 8 indicating that it is "an online publisher of technology industry news," but does not 
include on-line circulation or other statistics, or other comparative evidence showing that its 
viewership is relatively high such that it qualifies as a major medium. 
On appeal, the Petitioner identifies additional articles that it asserts are about the Beneficiary as they 
"mentioned his] other ro·ects." Three of these, 
,, " 'published 
on techcrunch. com, and ' 
I f' published on m~o-b-il-es_y_ru_p_.c_o_m_, -a-re_a_b_o_~_t_t_h_e_B_e_n_et-i-c1-. a-rv_a_n_d_r-el-a-te_t_o_h_1_· s-w-o-rk--T-h~e 
Petitioner also submits a foreign language article, l I I l" published at latribuna.hn along with a certified, foll English translation of this article, 
about the Beneficiary and relating to his work. However, as we note above, the Petitioner has not 
established that techcrunch.com is a professional or major trade publication or a major medium, and 
here the record lacks evidence demonstrating the same as it relates to mobilesyryup.com or to 
latribuna.hn. In addition, the article published on latribuna.hn does not include an author, as required 
per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
A fourth article, I ~ publis~h-ed_o_n_b_u_s_i_n_e-ss_w_1-.r-e-.c-o-m-in_c_l_u_d_e_s_a_l_is_t_o_f __ t_e_a_m_s-an_d_p_ro_~--e-c-ts-,-i-n_cl_u_d-in_g_o_n_e_t-it-le-d~ 
I I highlighted by the Petitioner. However, the article does not mention the Beneficiary or 
otherwise demonstrate that it is about him and related to his work. As we note above, articles that are 
not about a beneficiary do not meet this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner does not provide 
evidence demonstrating that busineswire.com is a professional or major trade publication or major 
medium. 
~' the Petitioner asserts that two articles about the Beneficiar 's work on 
l__J' ' from ndtvprime.com 
and ".__~ _________ ----,-, establish his eligibility for this criterion. As we note above, the 
record includes a series of screenshots from youtube.com with a caption reading 'I I I ~ and the logo for NDTV Prime. While this series of screenshots includes one titled 
and one titled ' it also 
includes shots with text readin and .--------------~.........,_ ______________ ___, 
.__ ____________ ___.' While this is sufficient to show that the first interview is, in part, 
about the competition, it is not sufficient to establish that it is about the Beneficiary. In addition, the 
document from ndtv.com titled "About the Company," does not include on-line circulation statistics 
or statistics for other websites establishing that ndtv.com is a major medium. Furthermore, USCIS 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
8 We note that Wikipedia is an online. open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee 
the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (January 28, 2020) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
8 
need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 
SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major 
media). With respect to the second article,.__ __________ ___,' the Petitioner provides a 
text link to youtube.com that does not identify the Beneficiary, and the record lacks sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that this television program is about him and related to his work, as required. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation that establishes that the 
Beneficiary meets 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 this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has a beneficiary made original 
contributions, but also that these contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that a beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have risen to a level of 
major significance in the field. Here the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is eligible for this 
criterion based on his original work in the field of software engineering, as demonstrated through the 
filing of a provisional patent, articles he has written, and recommendation letters. 
With respect to the patent, the Petitioner submits a provisional patent application titled i~----~ 
I I' identifying the Beneficiary as one of two the principal inventors. 9 A 
patent may recognize the originality of an invention or idea, but does not necessarily establish it as a 
contribution of major significance in the field. The record includes a letter from I I 
senior patent counsel for the Petitioner, noting that "developing an original innovation that provides 
sufficient value to [the Petitioner] to justify expending its resources to submit" the atent is "a 
testimony to the originality and innovative nature of [the Beneficiary]'s work." head of 
trust platform and foundational modeling for the Petitioner, describes an'-----------~ 
for which this patent has been filed and notes that he "strongly believes that [ the Beneficiary]' s original 
work is extremely valuable intellectual property and has strong use cases and transformative value in 
the industry." In her letter,.__ _____ ____. global mobility and benefits manager for the Petitioner, 
also mentions that the Petitioner had filed this patent on behalf of the Beneficiary. However, these 
letters do not explain or demonstrate how the patent has already influenced or impacted the field or is 
otherwise considered an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
With respect to documents authored by the Beneficiary, the record reflects that he has authored and 
had published original articles "pertaining to software engineering, machine learning, risk assessment 
and engineering, and building models for trust and risk" as the Petitioner argues on appeal. However, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's authorship and publication of articles on websites 
such as medium.com, indeed.com, or in an alumnae magazine, show the major significance of his 
original contributions in software engineering. Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 
9 We note that the Petitioner has not established that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has awarded this 
patent. 
9 
204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they are of "major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) ajf'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, the Petitioner 
does not provide evidence showing how the Beneficiary's authorship of these articles were majorly 
significant in the field. 10 
The letters ofrecommendation in the record identify several of the Beneficiary's original contributions 
in the field of software engineering. 11 I Is letter identifies the Beneficiary's "development of 
a novel method to create probability distribution of a topic given the date" as part of his participation 
in the Data Science Challenge, but does not provide specific examples of how t9is method bas hee11 
implemented widely in the field, or is otherwise majorly significant in the field. I I ~------~ managing director of details how the Beneficiar 's developed "an ilgorithj 
for I !attributes" f r n " xtended 's 
I ~ algorithm to include I !matching." ~------,---'' chief executive 
officer atl I notes, "when working as a Summer Analyst at I I 
[the Beneficiary] built an alerting system which identified investments which were close to Value at 
I I" However, the language of this regulatory criterion requires that the Beneficiary's original 
contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting his employer. See 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer 
had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). These 
letters do not sufficiently illustrate how the Beneficiary's contributions to these companies have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, or have remarkably impacted or influenced the field such 
that they rise to the level of "a contribution of major significance." 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner does not show that the Beneficiary has met this criterion. 
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) 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary has served in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. As it relates to a leading role, the evidence 
must establish that a beneficiary is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help 
to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 12 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a beneficiary has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome 
of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a beneficiary's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 13 In addition, this criterion 
requires that the organization or establishment must be recognized as having a distinguished 
reputation, which is marked by 
Regarding the Beneficiary's criti~) ro)e for the Petitioner, the record includes the aforementioned 
letter froml I and one fro I, director of engineering and head of trust and safety 
10 We note that one article identified on appeal,~---=--=--.------------------­
is under review. and the record does not reflect that it had been published at the time that the Petitioner filed this petition 
on the Beneficiary's behalf 
11 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
12 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii); see also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
10 
operations for the Petitioner. I states that the Beneficiary "built a highly sophisticated 
machine learning model. .. to determine if the transaction is risky." He continues, noting that the 
P i i n r 1 the development of "multiple iterations of the model" that is "deployed in the D 
'--;::===::::;-_.of [the Petitioner.]"! I asserts that this work resulted in a "0.51 % improvement 
in.__ __ _. and $11.8 million improvement in revenue" and that it "significantly influenced the 
strategy of the Identity team at [ the Petitioner]." He identifies this as "one of the high impact works 
of software engineering" and that it was not possible without the Beneficiary's "extraordinary aptitude 
and expertise." 
.__ __ ___,I also refers to this work done by the Beneficiary that "increased the company's revenue by 
an estimated $11. 8 million a year." His letter forth er states that the model described above "drove one 
of the largest improvements in the company's primary metric by any individual project at [the 
Petitioner] in 2018." He farther states that this project was "critical to [the Petitioner J's mission as it 
helps to keep [its] Lr----,__-~ _ __JWlowever, the Petitioner does not provide evidence 
corroborating eithe~ f s o~ .... ---~-_.~s assertions with regard to the Beneficiary's direct 
impact on the Petitioner's revenue. The record similarly lacks evidence establishing the impact on the 
Identity team's strategy, as claimed byl I or showing how the work drove the largest 
improvement by any individual project, as I I states. These conclusory statements are 
insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. See 1756, Inc. v. United States 
Att)· Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (noting that we need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements). Finally, the Petitioner does not submit documentation to establish that it enjoys a 
distinguished reputation, as required. 
To farther establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner rovides letters of 
support from I I co-founder and chief executive officer of~_....,..........._ ___ __., 
I I, engineering mana er at the Petitioner engineering manager for the.__ ____ _. 
I~---~ I team, an '---------~ visiting scholar at I !university. 
I landl lboth assert that the Beneficiary played a critical role forl • I his 
prior employer. I I notes that he"built the I I mode~for users," a 
project that was "a ke element in helpingl ., lacquire customers in the industry such 
as I l" whileL_ ___ ~___j-=........,~1-the Beneficiary] was fondamenta mt e creation ... of 
codes and algorithms" used by .__ ___ __. However, these letters do not provide detailed 
explanations nor does the record contain evidence showing how the Beneficiary's work resulted in 
these outcomes. Both l land I I assert that the Beneficiary's work contributed 
greatly to I l's financial success, and note that the company's peak revenue was over $3 million. 
Again, the Petitioner does
1
not prlvide evidence corroborating these assertions. The record also lacks 
evidence establishing that enjoys a distinguished reputation . 
.__ __ ___,I describes the Beneficiary as "in the top 1 %" of engineers" he has worked with and provides 
two examples of the Beneficiary's work. He notes his work in building "a monitoring tool for the 
entire cluster" that was "extremely useful for maintaining the cluster, reducing the downtime and 
improving the efficiency of the team." I I also describes "a visualization dashboard" built by 
the Beneficiary that "allowed product and business users ... to make data-driven decisions."! I 
opines that this work was "critical to operations." Here these examples show the importance of the 
Beneficiary's work tol I team and to data and business users, but neither the letter nor 
11 
evidence in the record show that these projects were of significant importance to the outcome of the 
establishment's activities, as required. As we note above, we need not accept conclusory statements. 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that the ~---------~enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
Fina11,,J 7 focuses on the Beneficiary's work developing software applications fµr..Jlw; 
I rTechnologyto allow the project to "take information on public services inL_J 
that are available online, and share them with stakeholders living in rural areas, who do not have access 
to the internet." I I describes these two applications and concludes that this work was 
"essential in promoting the main purpose of the Program," but does not provide detailed examples of 
how it was essential, or was otherwise significant to the Program's outcomes. Letters that lack 
specifics and make broad, unsupported assertions do not add value, and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 14 As with the other 
organizations, we note that the Petitioner does not provide evidence showing that this Program has a 
distinguished reputation, as required. 
The Petitioner therefore has not provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner submits its offer of employment to the Beneficiary, a printout providing the 
Beneficiary's salary as of February 2018, his paystubs, 2017 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, 
and his 2017 Federal taxes. The record also includes geographical and position-appropriate 
compensation surveys, such as one from glassdoor.com titled "Software Engineer- Machine Leaming 
Salaries inl I" The evidence is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary has commanded 
a high salary in relation to other software engineers. 15 Accordingly, we find the record establishes 
that the Beneficiary meets this criterion and will withdraw the Director's findings to the contrary. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
15 We further note that the Petitioner submits evidence of the Beneficiary's remuneration in the form of held stock options, 
which we have reviewed but do not discuss here. 
12 
director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow 
that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence establishing the Beneficiary's receipt 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 Beneficiary's acclaim and recognition 
required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, 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 the Beneficiary's 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 Beneficiary 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
13