dismissed EB-1A Case: Systems Analyst

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7406398 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an attorney, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a systems analyst, as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 1 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 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
1 The record does not formally designate the Beneficiary as the Petitioner's client, but, as the Petitioner notes, "any person" 
may file a petition to classify a given beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)( 1 ). 
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 a 
beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of their 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 they 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 beneficiary 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is "an ERP [Enterprise Resource Planning] Systems Analyst, 
specializing in Product Life Management (PLM) and Business Intellirnce (BI)." At the time the present 
petition was filed in April 2019, the Beneficiary was employed by l which filed 
approved nonimmigrant petitions on his behalf in July 2013 and July 2016. Subsequently, in May 2019 
and again in January 2020,I !filed nonimmigrant petitions on his behalf The 2019 
petition was approved; the 2020 petition is still pending. 2 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Petitioner 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 Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary meets four criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director found that the Beneficiary met the criteria numbered (iv) and (vi), but not (viii) and (ix). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets all four claimed evidentiary criteria. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Beneficiary meets the 
criteria relating to judging and authorship of scholarly articles. However, for the reasons explained 
below, we conclude that the Beneficiary does not meet the criteria pertaining to a leading or critical 
role and high remuneration. 
2 Part 4, line 8 of the petition form asked whether any other immigrant petitions had been filed by the Beneficiary or on 
his behalf. The Petitioner answered "no." The Beneficiary, however, filed a petition on his own behalf in August 201 L 
seeking a lower-p1iority employment-based immigrant classification. The petition was approved shortly afterward. 
2 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner initially stated: 
[The Beneficiary] performs in a leading role as a Consultant in SAP PLM and a Business 
Intelligence Analyst for I I His duties include the design and 
configuration of ECM, as well as managing changes in ECO and ECR. He leads critical 
initiative projects and implements and innovates concepts like Big Data and Machine 
Leaming, after conducting research. 
the The Petitioner submitted background information aboutc=J and a client, 
manufacturer o~ I equipment. The materials establish the distingui .... sh_e_d-re_p_u-ta-t-io_n_o_f~..__~ 
butnoto±O 
A letter attributed to the vice president ofc=Jcalls the Beneficiary "a crucial contributor for our success" 
and lists "[a] few highlights of [the Beneficiary's] accomplishments at 0': 
• [The Beneficiary] redesigned and implemented a new solution for the client's Supplier 
collaboration process after identifying the gaps, which saved them $800K in the 
process. 
• He improved sales order processing efficiency by 60% through the effective design 
and received great accolades from customer service representatives. 
• [The Beneficiary] designed and implemented the client's new reporting system which 
improved the performance and operation efficiencies immensely. This project won 
the best innovation award. 
• [The Beneficiary] has received best resource, team player awards and commendations 
fromc=Js clients regarding his work and solution designs. 
The letter describes the Beneficiary's technical proficiencies but does not fully explain their impact on 
the organization. The Petitioner also submits letters attributed to a former support lead atl land the 
chief executive officer of a contracting firm that worked with the Beneficiary a~ I 
There are several reasons to infer common origin, at least in part, of the three letters. All three of these 
letters are unsigned, and printed in the same font on plain paper with no letterhead. There are similarities 
of style and wording as well, such as needless capitalization of some words and references to the 
Beneficiary as "the expert" rather than "an expert." 
Each letter ends with three indented words: 
Address 
Email 
Phone 
3 
No letter includes an actual email address after "Email," or a telephone number after "Phone." Only one 
letter (attributed to the~ official) shows an address on the line marked "Address." The other two 
letters have no contact information at all, making them difficult to verify. Letters attesting to a 
beneficiary's employment experience must include the address of the writer. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). 
The above evidence of common origin diminishes the credibility of the unsigned letters. See Surinder 
Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an adverse credibility determination in 
asylum proceedings based in part on the similarity of the affidavits); see also Mei Chai Ye v. US. 
Dep 't. of Justice, 489 F .3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) ( concluding that an immigration judge may 
reasonably infer that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is 
the common source). In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) 
(quoting Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner submits a 2013 article from a trade publication, indicating that j.__ ___ _.l would be one 
of the first SAP customers taking a brave step forward" by using SAP's "celebrated HANA platform" for 
database management. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary played a key role in this transition, 
despite not being an employee of SAP orl I The article does not mention the Beneficiary, and the 
only evidence of the Beneficiary's involvement is in the form of the unsigned letters discussed above, 
only one of which mentions the HANA platform. (Another letter indicates that 'I I is a 
I I partner with SAP.") 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "fails to consider other evidence that clearly establishes 
that the beneficiary distinguished himself quite clearly and that his distinguished achievements were 
lauded by others in the field." The issue, however, is not whether "the beneficiary distinguished himself" 
The regulation requires evidence that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. 
Moreover, the "other evid,nce" in oues~ion is a letter that the Petitioner identifies as Exhibit G(l ), 
attributed to an official of~---~ attesting to the Beneficiary's role "in several new project 
initiatives id~--~t The record, however, contains no Exhibit G(l ). Exhibit G is a copy of the 
Beneficiary's IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2017, issued byD The record contains 
no other indication that the Beneficiary worked atl I either directly or as a contractor. Because the 
letter itself is not in the record, and the assertions quoted from that letter are not otherwise consistent with 
the record, we cannot grant any evidentiary weight to quotations purporting to arise from that letter. 3 
At best, the submitted materials indicate that the Beneficiary was involved in a high-profile project for a 
prominent client. The evidence is not sufficiently com~ reliable to support the conclusion that the 
Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role forl__J or Dor tha0 has a distinguished 
reputation. 
3 The Petitioner submitted lengthy statements with the initial filing of the petition and in response to a request for evidence. 
Neither of those statements include any mention of the letter identified as Exhibit G(l). It appears that the Petitioner may have 
inadvertently refened to conespondence relating to an umelated petition. We note that the Beneficiary has co-authored 
scholarly articles with another individual who shares the Beneficiary's surname, and who is identified as a manager atl I 
4 
The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
D paid the Beneficiary $104,690.96 in 2017. A printout from the online version of the Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shows that the median annual 
wage for computer systems analysts was $88,740 in 2018. But the same printout shows that "the highest 
[paid] 10 percent earned more than $142,220." A printout from US. News & World Report indicates 
that, in 2017, 25% of computer systems analysts earned salaries higher than $112,540. This information 
indicates that the Beneficiary's salary was above average, but not significantly high in relation to others 
in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted an analysis by Glassdoor for "Computer Systems Analyst Salaries in 
Illinois," where the Beneficiary was employed at the time. The analysis showed "Average Base Pay" of 
$70,198 per year, in a salary range from $59,000 on the low end to $92,000 on the high end. The same 
analysis, however, stated: "The national average salary for a Computer Systems Analyst is $70,197 in 
the United States." Thus, Glassdoor cited the same average figure for Illinois and the United States as a 
whole, and this figure is substantially lower than the national figure from the more authoritative BLS site, 
as well as the US. News site. The Petitioner does not explain why the figures from Glassdoor should 
carry more weight than two other sources that are broadly consistent with one another, but not with 
Glassdoor. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has commanded significantly high remuneration 
in relation to others 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 
project cited as the Beneficiary's signature accomplishment took place in 2013, six years before the 
filing of the petition, and this one event would not suffice to establish the sustained acclaim that the 
statute demands. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5