dismissed EB-1A Case: Technical Product Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 31,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cloud communications company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences and business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(I)(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, 
of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the ten criteria and that 
he "has demonstrated his extraordinary ability in the field of technical product management, through 
sustained national and international acclaim and evidence that he has risen to the very top of his field 
internationally." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Mauer of T-. Inc. 
The term "ex traordinary ability " rde rs only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top ofthe 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 two options for satisfying this classiticatio n' s initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demon strate that a beneficiary has a one-time achievement (that 
is a major, internationally recogni zed award). Alternatively, a petition er must provide 
documentation for an individual that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, membership s, and published material 
in certain media). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to subm it comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
Where a benefici ary meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totalit y of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demon strates 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 fulfi lling 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its qua lity," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility , both individuall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determ _ine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true ." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiar y is senior product manager with the petitionin g organi zation and has previously 
worked as a software engineer for arid Beca use the Petitione r has not 
indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major , internationally recog nized award, 
it must show that he satisfies at l east three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i) -(x). In 
denyin g the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary had met only the high salary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On appeal, the Petitioner maintain s that the Beneficiary also meets the 
published material, original contributions, and leading or critical role criteria. 1 For the reasons 
discussed below, the record does not support a finding that the Petition er satisfies at least three 
criteria. 
1 These three .criteria correspond to the categor ies of eviden~e at 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i ii), (v), and (v iii), respectivel y. 
We note that the Petition er previousl y c laimed the Benefi ciary satisfied the awa rds crite rion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) based on his awards. The Director detennined that these awa rds were related to 
projects he perfonned as a compan y emplo yee, and that the e vidence did not show they were nat ionall y or internat ionally 
recog nized awards in the field. The Petitioner does not offer addition al evidence or argument s for this criterion on 
appea l, nor does the record support a finding that the Beneficiary meets it. 
2 
.
Malter ofT- , Inc. 
A. Evidenti ary Criteria 
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 class[fication is sought. 
S11ch evidence shall include the Iitle, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record includes variou s online articles about com panies that employed the Benefic iary and their 
software product launche s. None of these articles are about the Beneticiary. For example, a 
2016 article in entitled 
discusses the company's revenue growth, stock valuation, quarte rly losses, and service offer ings. A 
brief section of this article note s that the comp any "introduced a serv ice which 
provides developers with deeper analytics of their voice applicati on users," but it does not name or 
identify the Beneficiary. 2 In addition, a 2016 articl e in entitled 
new analytics service aims to help optimize web calls," describ es the company's 
service "that promises to help pinpoint the technical issues responsible for drop s in audio quality," 
but this article does mention the Beneficiary. 
A large number of the article s provided for this criterion discuss and its new product 
offering s. For instance , an 2014 article in , entitled 
is about the company's launch of an Internet streaming 
and gaming device. Addition al articles in the comment on the 
launch of produ ct and its capabilities.3 These art icles, however, are not about the 
Beneficiary . Nor do these two articles mention his work to enable external USB mass storage on 
devices. Furthermore, the record include s articles about 
processors, but this material does not mention the Beneficiary or his Android software 
development work. The plain language of the regulat ory criterion requires "published material about 
the alien." Articles that are not about the Beneficiary do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g., 
Negro -Piump e v. Okin, 2:07-CV -00820 at *I, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholdin g a finding that 
articles abo ut a show are not about the actor) . 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the article s it provide d "are abo ut [the Bcncfic iar)(] and his 
work," but does 
not cite to any spec ific example s. It then contend s that, given the natu re of his field, 
software engineers/product manage rs such as the Beneficiary would not normally be named i n press 
and public ations relating to his company. The Petitioner further maintains that the published 
material for this 
criterion "alternatively and comparatively demonstra tes being about the Beneficiar y 
and his work. " 
2 Accordin g to a letter from director of product manage ment for the Petitioner , the Beneficiary was 
responsible for leading the design , develo pment, and release of 
3 The record include s a letter from an 
Beneficia ry's work involved "enabling external USB mass storage on 
3 
product manager , stating that the 
devices ." 
.
Maller ofT-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comp arable evidence" if the 
ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiar y's occupation." lt is the petitioner's 
burden to demonstrate that the regulatory criteria are not readily appli<;able to an individu al' s 
occupation and that the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidentiary support indicating that 
the criteria~ at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iii) does not readily apply to software engineers or product 
managers . As such, the Petitioner has not shown that he may rely on comparable evidence for this 
criterion . 
In addition , while the record reflects that the Beneficiary may have been involved in the 
development process for new software products that attracted media coverage, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated these a~icles about the Beneficiary's employers and their product s are comparable to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) which requires evidence of published mate ri a~ about the 
alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitione r has not shown 
the evidence it claims as comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)( 3)(iii) is of the same 
caliber as that required by the regulation. Accordingly, the Bene ficiary has not satisfied this 
criterion by meeting its stated requirements or through the submission of comparable evidence. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scienlific, scholarly, arlislic. a!hletic. or business­
related contribulions (~( major significance in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion , the Petition~r offered various recom mendation letters. The 
Director considered these letters and concluded that, although the references speak highly of the 
Benefic iary and describe various projects in which he has participat ed, they were insufficient to 
establish that his work rises to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
For the reasons discussed below , we agree with that determination. 
On appeal , the Petitioner contends that it "provid ed probative expert letters confirming that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion " and that these letters "clearl y spell out the individual contributions 
[the] Beneficiary has made on numerous project s." 4 _With respect to the Benefi ciary' s software 
development projects at currentl y a staff systems engineer with 
, indicated that the Beneficiary "worked on multiple products 
including the and and "helped to design and develop power 
management software that is used in countless Android products worldwide." 
Regarding the Beneficiary 's projects at senior manager for tablet 
product software, stated that the Beneficiar y was involved in "developing multiple product s across 
different team s. His notable contributions include servmg m lead roles for core produ ct 
development for app, storage, remote app, 
4 We discu ss a sampling of these letters, but have review ed and considered each one. 
5 1otes that he was previously employed at and served as "the technical lead" of the Beneficiary's 
projects. 
4 
.
Malter ofT-. Inc. 
and numerous features on '6 further indicated that the 
Beneficiary "dev eloped plans for measuring user activity on using web 
technolog y, which would help in evaluating the quality of features developed." 
With regard to the Beneficiary's work for the Petitioner, it provided a letter from 
the company' s vice president of product management, asserting that the Beneficiary "created and 
released a wildly successfully product with millions in projected revenue s" and that 
"customers have already adopted" this product. In addition, the record includes letters from three of 
the Petitioner's customers discussing their utilization of For example, 
general manager of stated that is a high ly innovative product" that 
allows his company "to identif y how, where and when problems arise in communications pipeline 
with our customers." Similarly , the two additional customer letters from the managing partner of 
and the founder of explain how has helped their 
companies improve customer service. 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submits revenue 
report and multiple invoices reflecting itemized charges for the product. In addition, as previously 
mentioned , the record contains various articles discussing the Benefi ciary's employers and their new 
product offerings. This documentation includes online article s in publications such as 
and While these articles mention the introducti on of new products with which 
the Beneficiary was involved , they are not sufficient to demonstrate that his specific development 
work is considered of major significance in the field. · 
The regulatory language requires that the Petitioner ' s original contributions be "of majo r 
significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting software deve lopment projects for his 
employers and their product offerings. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (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). While the Beneficiary has been involved in the development of multiple products 
during his employment as a software engineer and senior product manager , the evidence is not 
sufficient to show that his work has substantially influenced the field as a whole or otherwi se rises to 
the level of an original contribution of major significance in software development or technical 
product manage ment. For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
meets 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). 
As Senior Product Manager for the Petitioner, we find that the Petit ioner has performed in a critical 
role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. The record includes letters from company 
6 The regulations include a separate criterion for performing in a leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
and the Beneficiary's role for his employers will be further addressed under that criterion. 
5 
.
Matter ofT-. Inc. 
executives discussing the Petitioner ' s specific responsibilities and stating that he led the 
development of one of the Petitioner's "most important product releases" and a 
source of "significant additional revenue. " In addition, the Petition er offers various articles that 
suffice to demonstrate that the company has garnered a distinguished reputation. Accordingly , the 
Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion and the Director' s finding on this 
issue is withdrawn. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signtficantfy high 
remuneration for services. in relation to others in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (3)(ix). 
With the petition , the Petitioner provided its October 2015 job offer to the Beneficiary stati ng that he 
would receive a "gross base annual salary " of $145 ,000. In addition , it submitted a January 2017 
letter listing an " updated annual compensation · figure of $150 ,991. " The Petition er also offered 
salary information from the OOH stating that " [t]he median annual wage for computer and 
inform ation systems managers was $135 ,800 in May 20 16" and that "the highe st 10 percent earned 
more than $208,000." Furthermore , in the "Information " industry, the median annual wage for 
computer and information systems managers was $150,190. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner presented the Beneficiary's 
2015 and 2016 Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, reflecting earnings of $186,318.42 7 and 
$134,070.41, respectively. The RFE response also included a July 2017 letter from the Petitioner 
and July and August 2017 pay statements indicating that the Benefici ary earns a "[b]ase salary of 
$157,031.68." We note that his earnings and other remuneration received afte r June 8, 20 17 post­
date the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) (l), (12). While the afore mentioned 
information and evidence shows that the Beneficiary 's 2015 and 2017 earnings were above the 
median , his salary remains well below the top decile in his field, and we do not find the record 
sufficient to demonstrate a "high salary" relative to others in the field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary ' s other remuneration , the July 20 17' letter from the Petitioner states 
that he received "[a]nnual vesting of stock options" of $86,609.60, ·an Employee Stoc k Purchas e 
Plan 15% disc ount of $4,156.72 per year, and employee benefits (such as 40l (k), med ical, and 
dental) of $34,500.00 annually. The Petitioner , however , does not offe r comparative evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's other remuneration is significantly high relative to others in the 
field. For the above reason s, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion and the Director ' s finding on this issue is withdrawn. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary is not eligible becau se the Petiti.oner has not submitted the required initial evidence 
of either a qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria 
7 This 2015 W-2 amount repre sented wages from both the Petitioner ($ 15,026.62) and 
($171 ,291.80). 
6 
Malter ofT-. Inc. 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the 
materials in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Beneficiary has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller ofT-, Inc., ID# 1092764 (AAO May 31, 2018) 
7