dismissed EB-1A Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22678750 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 28, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a solution director, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
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)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he "is a world-renowned expert in developing and designing computer 
algorithms inl I supply chain manufacturing processes." In the ast the Petitioner has 
worked as an advisory consultant for a a business IT lead for a manager of 
technology consulting advisory services for and a senior product manager for 
I I Since 2018, the Petitioner has worked as a solution director for I I in 
I I New Jersey. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-­
(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied four of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pe1iaining to judging the work of 
others and leading or critical roles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the criterion 
pertaining to original contributions of major significance. The Petitioner does not contest the 
Director's conclusions regarding authorship of scholarly articles, and therefore he has waived appeal 
on that issue. 1 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied only one criterion, relating to 
participation as a judge of the work of others. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)(stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulvedav. US. Att '.v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-2 7312011, 2011WL4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them onappealto theAAO). 
2 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded thatthe Petitioner's work has been lucrative for his employers 
and "useful to the [ client] companies," but that the Petitioner had not shown "the major significance of 
the products or the widespread impact that the products have had on the field as a whole." 
On appeal, the Petitioner quotes from previously submitted letters and asserts that he has met his burden 
of proof. We will discuss examples of the submitted evidence below. 
The Petitioner devoted a substantial portion of his initial statement to this criterion, mostly relating to his 
"Original Scientific contributions in manufacturing engineering and supply chain automation for 
I I and medical device and diagnostic business." The Petitioner also submitted thousands of 
pages of technical documentation. This evidence shows the work that the Petitioner has performed, but 
such documentation is not evidence of its own significance. The Petitioner asserted that he developed 
several projects that contributed td "great commercial success,"but the regulatory standard 
requires evidence of major significance in the field. The Petitioner has not established that "great 
commercial success" for his employer amounts to major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted several letters fro ml I officials and others. Many of these letters, like 1he 
Petitioner's own statement, provide technical details about specific projects and assert that the Petitioner's 
work has major significance, without explaining how his contributions benefit the field as a whole, ra1her 
than individual employers or customers. 
For example, a vice president a who previously worked with the Petitioner at 
and stated that the Petitioner's work at l"will help to transform 
I !companies to adopt Smart Manufacturing, Adaptive Plant and Digital Twins. This 
solution will have revolutionary impact [ on thel I I industry" and "will help the 
I industry to become resilient to any disruption." However, as phrased it appears that 1hese 
products are still under development, and the letter discusses the potential future impactofthe Petitioner's 
work rather than showing that such work is already a contribution of major significance. 
A director ofl I stated that the Petitioner developed a that "helps 
companies to deal with constantly changing prices of commodities have a real impact on bottom line [sic] 
and shift Global manufacturing and procurement to favorable markets." The same individual states that 
the Petitioner's "work are [sic] beingusedasreferencetemplate [sic] for supply chain integration." These 
assertions do not indicate the extent to which the Petitioner's products are used in the field, or the 
significance of their impact. 
Atthe outset, we note some aspects that call into question some of the letters submitted. Where an opinion 
is in any way questionable, we may reject or give less weight to that evidence. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19I&NDec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
Letters attributed to different people contain identical wording. For example, two letters attributed to 
current or former officials at I contain the following nearly-identical passages (note: 
grammatical errors and unnecessary capitalizations have not been conected): 
3 
[The Petitioner] has performed 
exceptionally well during his tenure of 
work in Product Development and 
clinical trial team. He has worked in 3 
projects as follows: 
1. Stability Study: 
stability study and continuous 
validation and verification process is 
very critical and complex. The 
slightest variation of any stability 
parameter may have adverse impact on 
patient's life. He played a very critical 
role as subject matter expe1i and 
crafted all technical specification and 
validation scripts to ensures hundred 
percent compliance and accountability 
as per Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of 
N ew _____ and Products. 
The Petitioner's knowledge 
management 
and management helped in 
integration stability study with 
downstream logistics Supply chain 
processes. 
[The Petitioner's] contribution was 
phenomenal during his tenure of work in 
Product Development and clinical trial 
team. He has worked and already in 3 
projects as follows: 
1. Stability Study: 
stability study and continues validation 
and verification process is very critical 
and complex. The slightest variation of 
any stability parameter may have direct 
impact on patient. He played a very 
critical role as subject matter expert and 
crafted all technical specs and validation 
scripts to ensures hundred percent 
compliance and accountability as per 
Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of New 
I I and Products. [The 
Petitioner's] knowledge I 
I I management and I 
management helped in integration 
stability studywith downstream logistics 
Supply chain processes. 
Two other letters attributed to current or former officials of (Clinical Diagnostics are, for the most 
part, nearly identical to one another. 2 The nearly identical language in the letters "suggests that the letters 
were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' 
content." SeeHamalv. U.S. Dep 'to/Homeland Security, No. 19-2534, slip op. at 8, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 
2021). 3 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown his contributions to 
be significant beyond his employers and their clients. The Director requested"[ o ]bjective, documentary 
evidence ofthe [Petitioner]'s contribution to the field." 
In response, the Petitioner stated that "each of the letters provided by [the Petitioner] went into great and 
specific detail about his contributions and how they improved the chances of wastage of expensive 
I lrawmaterials that was [sic] instrumental in providing Ito the patients at a 
2 The letters are not only identical with regard to technical details but even in statements such as "Beyond that, as an ex­
colleague, I have to say that his senseofhumor and good nature make long nights and tough deadlines much easier." 
3 Another shared characteristic of many of the letters is an unusually high number of grammatical errors and anomalous 
capitalizations, suchasthose seen in the examples quoted above. 
4 
reasonable cost." The letters indicate that the Petitioner made useful contributions relating to the 
I I supply chain, but in the absence of other documentation he has not shown the major 
significance of those contributions. 
New letters, from some of the same individuals who signed earlier letters, include the assertion that the 
Petitioner optimized supply chain processes in a way that reduced waste and saved clients millions of 
dollars. While the letters and accompanying documents provide some technical details, they lack context 
to show that the Petitioner's efforts have been not only useful for clients and profitable for his employers, 
but of major significance in the field. An official ofl I asserts that the Petitioner's work "is a gift 
to the whole industry" that have "impacted the industry at large," but the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's work has "provoked widespread commentary" within the industry. See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2 appendix,https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
substantiate claims of this nature. 
In addition to new letters, the Petitioner cited contracts and licenses as "objective and documentary 
evidence thatthe solutions developed by [ the Petitioner] are original contribution[ s] of major significance 
in the field." Those documents show that the Petitioner's work has been of use to customers, but the 
Petitioner has not established that such licenses and contracts are only seen in thel I industry 
with respect to original contributions of major significance. Letters indicate that some of the Petitioner's 
work is now proprietary for individual clients, which is not readily consistent with claims that his work 
has resulted in industry-wide improvements or savings. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has performed work for high-profile clients, but the Petitioner has 
not met his burden of proof to establish that his original contributions on behalf of those clients are of 
major significance in the field,recognized beyond those whohavetaught, employed, or worked with him. 
The Petitioner has described his work in dense technical detail, but implementation of his work, even by 
major manufacturers, does not inherently indicate major significance; the Petitioner has not established 
that his contributions to the pharmaceutical industry have major significance. 
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 Director concluded, without further comment, that the Petitioner had satisfied this criterion. As 
explained below, we disagree. 
For a leading role, we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is ( or was) a leader within 
the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. For a critical role, we look at 
whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a division or department of the 
organization or establishment. 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
Second, we determine whether the organization or establishment, or the department or division for which 
the person holds or held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished reputation. The relative size or 
longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor but is considered 
5 
together with other infonnation to determine whether a distinguished reputation exists. Merriam-
Webster' s online dictionary defines distinguished as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence 
or befitting an eminent person.4 Id. 
The Petitioner claimed that he meets this criterion through "Speaker Engagements and Invitations as [an] 
Expert," and through his work for his current employer. The speaking engagements described in the 
record were one-time engagements, such as a lecture at a "department technical fest" at the I Institute 
of Engineering Science and Technology and a monthly meeting of a local chapter of the Project 
Management Institute. The Petitioner did not establish that these short-term guest engagements amounted 
to leading or critical roles for the hosting organizations. Individual events such as conventions are not, 
themselves, organizations or establishments. 
Regarding his work for his employer, the Petitioner stated that his "important and indispensable" work as 
architect ofl I roducts "has directly impacted! I [sic] revenue growth by 8%." 
Company officials attested to the Petitioner's critical role with the company. 
But the Petitioner has notestablishedl ldistinguished reputation. The company's chief executive 
officer stated: "Our innovation has been recognized by respected external analysts such as I I who 
named us a I lin 2019. We have also been featured as a thought 
leader in Silicon Review and Manufacturing Technology Insights magazine." 
The Petitioner submitted a report froml I entitled _______________ 
______ The report names I as one of "four vendors [that] offer a diverse range of 
value propositions that make impacts across different industries and domains across the supply chain." 
Every page of the printout is marked: "This research note is restricted to the personal use of" I 
chief executive officer. These proprietary markings appear to indicate that the report is not widely 
circulated or available to the public. The Petitioner has not demonstrated thatl I inclusion in this 
report indicates a distinguished reputation. 
c==Jwas the subject of a cover story in The Silicon Review and named a _________ 
by Manuby Manufacturing Technology Insights, as one of" 10 companies that are at the forefront of 
providing Smart Factory solutions and impacting the industry," but the record does not shed further light 
on these publications, their own reputations, or the manner in whichl lwas selected for inclusion. 
The Petitioner did not provide background evidence about The Silicon Review and Manufacturing 
Technology Insights to establish the significance of the coverage and recognition described above. As a 
result, the Petitioner has not established that those entities engage in objective journalism rather than 
promotion and marketing. The Silicon Review story, published without a byline, appears to be 
promotional in nature. The image of what appears to be an undated magazine cover includes the legend 
This phrase could be either a 
headline or an advertising slogan. 
4 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary /distinguished. 
6 
The Petitioner submitted an IRS Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities, filed with the 
company's 2020 income tax return. The Petitioner states that this document shows thatl has 
been recognized as a research-based company qualified for R&D tax credit." The Petitioner does not 
explain how this tax credit is evidence of a distinguished reputation, rather than a reflection that the 
company engages in research and development. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that he had also perfmmed in leading and critical roles for 
and and ______ The Petitioner cites a newly-submitted letter and previously submitted 
documents, such as performance awards. The Petitioner asserts, for instance, that his '"techno-functional 
specification documents ... establish that he indeed played a significant role in developing the solutions 
which were implemented byl I clients at a large scale in their plants across the world." 
The materials establish that the Petitioner helped individual projects ome to successful completion, but 
these projects were not, themselves, divisions or departments o or 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser 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 conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner's reputation 
appears to be largely confined to his employers and collaborators. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7