dismissed EB-1A Case: Systems Analyst

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 05 065 50773 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: ,\\\N 2 9 zm 
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. 9 1153@)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
i/ Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 05 065 50773 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has 
earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) 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 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
8 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top level. 
This petition, filed on January 3, 2005, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a Senior Systems Analyst. The beneficiary has been working for 
that capacity since January 2002. 
and mn 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets the following criteria. 
LIN 05 065 50773 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien !s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
ate submission includes a letter from 
 President, Band 
Bloomington, Minnesota, stating: "[The ene iciary 
 as recently received an award of excellence 
the Website for Prairie Lakes District of the Boy Scouts Of America - formerly Indianhead 
Council - now Northern Star Council. He volunteers for this. He was recruited by the District Advancement 
Chair for this position." 
The record, however, includes no first-hand evidence of the "award of excellence." Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, according to 
 escription, this 
award reflects local recognition rather than national or international recognition. For these reasons, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
in the same or an alliedjield of speciJication for which classzjication is sought. 
further states: 
As the Prairie Lakes District Web Master, [the beneficiary] sits on a committee to decide the content 
of what will be placed on the Council Web Sites. [The beneficiary] and all other district Web Masters 
meet quarterly with the Council Web Master to decide on the content that will be placed on all web 
sites. The committee needs to ensure that all sites follow the policies outlined by the Boy Scouts of 
America. 
The plain wording of this criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of 
others." The record, however, includes no evidence from the Boy Scouts of America showing the beneficiary's 
participation as a judge. As stated previously, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Soffici at 158, 165. 
Further, we do not find that sitting on a committee whose function is to ensure that web site content complies 
with organizational policies constitutes judging the work of others for purposes of this criterion. Without 
evidence showing that the beneficiary has evaluated the work of other information systems professionals at 
the national or international level, we cannot conclude he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an e-mail from Thomas Salmo, Project Manager, Wholesale Systems, 
, stating: 
LIN 05 065 50773 
Page 4 
[The beneficiary] has been able to provide his current client with the ability to be able to easily 
communicate between two different database storage platforms which has never been accomplished 
before at Supervalu. He introduced the use of "called modules" into a system which was endangered 
of becoming cancelled, millions wasted. The system is a PC based transportation routing package 
which is fed by a Mainframe Legacy package. When [the beneficiary] was on this team the install 
was successful. 
[The beneficiary] was also able to provide the ability to determine whether a called module was 
called by an on-line or a batch application. He worked with 
 system programmers and 
CICS application expert to make this a reality. 
Currently [the beneficiary] has been asked to work on a SQL Server system, one he has not been 
exposed to using. In a short period of time [the beneficiary] has removed deadlocking issues and has 
resolved a great deal of the mysteries that were plaguing the current staff on the system. [The 
beneficiary's] ability to comprehend new technology and applications has been a tremendous benefit 
for us. 
The preceding comments reflect that the beneficiary has performed admirably at ., but it has not 
been established that his work rises to level of a contribution of major significance in the field of information 
technology. We accept that the beneficiary has helped to improve the functioning of his client's computer 
systems; however, it has not been shown how the greater field has changed as a result of this work. 
The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of 
recognition beyond those who have worked with the beneficiary. If the beneficiary's reputation is limited to 
his immediate acquaintances and clients, then he has not achieved national or international acclaim regardless 
of the expertise of his witnesses. Without extensive documentation showing that the beneficiary'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. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information printed from the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook stating that "median annual earnings of computer 
systems analysts were $62,890 in 2002" and that "the highest 10 percent earned more than $93,400." We do 
not find that median salary statistics are an appropriate basis for comparison. The petitioner must provide 
evidence that the beneficiary's salary places him at the very top of his field, not in the top half. See 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(2). Therefore, we find that the latter statistic offers a more appropriate basis for comparison. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the beneficiary's Form W-2s, Wage and Tax Statements, reflecting gross pay 
in the amount of $1 10,523.87 in 1999, $128,381.00 in 2000, $105,014.74 in 2001, $72,150.00 in 2002, 
$76,128.00 in 2003, and $88,344.00 in 2004. 
LIN 05 065 50773 
Page 5 
In 1999, 2000, and 2001, we acknowledge that the beneficiary earned a high level of compensation in his field. 
The statute and regulations, however, require the beneficiary's acclaim to be sustained. Subsequent to 2001, the 
beneficiary earned a level of compensation significantly lower than the top ten percent of his field. During the 
three-year period preceding the petition's filing date, it has not established that the beneficiary was among the 
highest-paid systems analysts at the national or international level. The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary 
meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at 
the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements set him significantly 
above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.