dismissed EB-1A Case: Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11244076 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 3, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a chief technology officer , seeks classification 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 Petitioner had 
not satisfied any 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)(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 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 ana lysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate rec ognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationa lly 
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 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. USCJS, 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that he has served as the chief technology officer for I , , I I since 2016. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a 
major, internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for four criteria. After reviewing 
all of the presented evidence, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner meets the requirements of 
at least three 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 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). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 1 The Petitioner provided articles posted on cbsnews.com (2), cnn.com, 
washingtonpost.com, axios.com, fortune.com, forbes.com (2), sfchronicle.com, reuters.com, ft.com, 
bloomberg.com, wired.com, wsj.com, ttnews.com (3), thedrive.com, freightwaves .com (2), 
businessinsider.com, mashable.com, and autonews.com. However, none of the articles reflect 
published material about the Petitioner. Rather, the articles show published material aboutl I 
In fact, 14 articles never mention the Petitioner, 7 articles briefly indicate his name as being a co­
founder 0£1 .... __ I as background information about the company, and 2 articles briefly quote the 
Petitioner regardinO technology andl I trucks. Articles that are not about an alien do 
not fulfill 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). 
1 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 ADJJ-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https :/ /www.uscis .gov/policymanual/HTML/Policy Manual.html. 
2 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that any of the articles represent published material about him 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 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 meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 2 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner argues his eligibility for this criterion based on his "patented inventions, rave reviews 
about his work, and letters from leading experts." The record contains evidence of two recently 
approved patents listing the Petitioner as one of the inventors. In general, a patent recognizes the 
originality of an invention or idea but does not necessarily establish a contribution of major 
significance in the field. As discussed further below, although the Petitioner expresses optimism and 
others opine that technology using his patents shows promise, he did not demonstrate how the patents 
already qualify as contributions of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential 
impacts. Here, the significant nature of his patents has yet to be determined. 
Further, the Petitioner references articles that reported on I . I and its continuous testing of 
,__ ___ ___.I driving. For example, a 2019 article posted on forbes.com reported onl I being "the 
first company to test an on a stretch of U.S. highway - and it so be combining 
an I J system with al I operator standing by to I I the vehicle when 
necessary." Another 2019 article posted on autonews.com indicated that "thel I test was a 
one-off event, not a permanent switch .me==]s overall testing procedure," "it represents the first 
step in a grcdual proce~s in which suchc==] test will increase in frequency as the company eyes 
the start of1~_ ---~I commercial operations in the second half of 2020," and "[ e ]fforts such as 
I , Is last week are a step along the route to making I !trucking a reality." The samples 
indicated here, as well as the evidence discussed under the published material criterion, relate to 
I l's developing and current testing o~ !vehicles. The documentation, however, does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's patents have already significantly impacted the field in a major 
way. The record, for example, does not reflect that his patents resulted in widespread usage or 
influenced in a majorly, significant manner. Instead, the record shows the effect of his patents in 
limited means at the testing stage of a long process withl specu~rive reference about futuristic 
applicability. In fact, the Petitioner's brief states that"[ w ]hile s trucks will be able to navigate 
I I on highways, they willbej jwhen they exit highways," and "[t]his will transform 
the trucking industry by allowing truck drivers [to] enjoy a sedentary life." (emphasis added). 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
3 
Likewise, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters discussing his role in developing technology 
atl I. For instance, "[the Petitioner] architected the system from the beginning and used his skills 
to lead his engineering team through different phases of development" I I; and 
j I' unique approach is a combination of practical technology development and a deep 
understanding of the underlying economic and technological forces directing the US trucking market," 
and " the Petitioner's] efforts enable~ ~ to farther develop their important technology" 
~----~· Here, the letters credit the Petitioner with developing technology atl I without 
showing how his contributions are viewed in the overall field as being majorly significant. 3 
In addition, the letters speculate on the possibility and potential of the technology at some 
undetermined time. For example, "the I I aspects ofj Is system could be deployed 
tol I transportation systems," "provides a roadmap of how the trucking industry can apply 
I I systems," and "[t]hese technologies have certainly caused a shift in how the 
trucking indust[ will operate in the future, but they also have the potential to revolutionize a wide 
range of field" b. ( emphasis added). Although the letters opine on the possibility of 
the influence of the technology at some time in the future, they do not demonstrate how his patents 
and work a~ lhave already impacted, influenced, or affected the field in a majorly significant 
manner beyond the company. 
The letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining how his contributions have been 
majorly significant in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are 
of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 4 On the other hand, 
letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 5 Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that I I invited him to speak at a conference discussing the 
future of the trucking industry." Besides submitting screenshots froml ~ confirming his 
speaking engagement, the Petitioner did not establish that his conference presentation resulted in an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. Publications and presentations are not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also 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). 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff din part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria relating to published material and 
original contributions. Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for two additional criteria on appeal, 
relating to leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high salary at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues. 6 
Accordingly, 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. 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 his 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 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). 
Although the record contains promising work of Starsky, the Petitioner did not establish that he is 
among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5