remanded EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 10, 2024 In Re: 31125065 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a data center/network engineer in the pharmaceutical industry, requests classification 
under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with 
"extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 53(b)(1)(A). Petitioners in this category must demonstrate "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and extensively document recognition of their achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met two of ten initial evidentiary criteria - one less than required for a final merits 
determination. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, in finding insufficient evidence of his 
commandment of a high salary and original contributions in his field, the Director misapplied law to 
facts. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the Petitioner met a third requisite evidentiary requirement by submitting 
evidence of his commandment of a high salary in his field. We will therefore withdraw the Director's 
contrary decision and remand the matter for a final merits determination and entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 1 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• They have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• They seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Their work would substantially benefit the country. 
1 After the appeal's filing, the Petitioner submitted additional materials regarding this matter. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) assigned a separate receipt number to the second filing. We will 
consider the second filing in a separate decision. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise commensurate with "one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Evidence 
of extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary standards. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 2 
If a petitioner meets either of the evidentiary requirements above, USCIS must make a final merits 
determination as to whether the record, as a whole, establishes their sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field's very 
top. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring a two-part analysis of 
extraordinary ability); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner, an Indian native and citizen, earned a bachelor of technology 
degree in computer science and engineering in his home country. He came to the United States and 
earned a master of science degree in computer science and an executive master of science degree in 
information systems security. He has worked in the United States as a data center/network engineer 
for more than six years, developing expertise in network security in the pharmaceutical industry. 
The Petitioner states that he wants to continue working as a data center/network engineer in the United 
States. Also, he states that, through research, he plans to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into the 
fields of cybersecurity and the Internet of Things. He served as lead author on a paper proposing to 
use AI in combination with watermarking to enhance and monitor security of medical data passing 
through networks. 
The Petitioner does not claim, nor does the record indicate, his receipt of a major, international award. 
He must therefore demonstrate his satisfaction of at least three of 10 initial evidentiary criteria. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x) 
The Director found that the Petitioner met two initial evidentiary criteria: authorship of scholarly 
articles in his field; and performance in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), (vii). The Petitioner contends that he also submitted proof 
of his original contributions of major significance and commandment of a high salary in his field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (ix). 
2 If the standards do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation, the noncitizen may submit comparable evidence to 
establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
A. Commandment of a High Salary 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of payroll documents showing that, from January 2023 to September 
2023, his annual salary rate rose from $91,140 to $126,880. He also submitted copies of two 2023 
letters offering him jobs as a data center/network engineer with annual salaries of $148,500 and 
$150,904. 
A credible job offer showing prospective wages may establish a petitioner's ability to command a high 
salary in their field. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). The record indicates no reason to doubt the 
credibility of the Petitioner's job offers. He has therefore demonstrated an ability to command an 
annual salary of $150,904 in his field. 
Evidence as to whether a petitioner's salary is high relative to others in their field may include 
compensation surveys, including materials from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1). The Petitioner's evidence included information from the DOL-sponsored 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET), an online database. See O*NET Res. Ctr., "About 
O*NET," www.onetcenter.org/ overview.html. The O*NET information indicates that, as of 2022, 
the top 10% of "network and computer systems administrators" in the Petitioner's metropolitan work 
area annually earned at least $139,230. The information also shows that the top 10% of these workers 
in that state and the United States annually earned at least $136,850 and $140,430, respectively. Thus, 
the O*NET evidence shows that the Petitioner commanded an annual salary within the top l 0% of 
network and computer systems administrators in his metropolitan work area, state, and the United 
States. 
The Director, however, found the evidence insufficient to show the Petitioner's commandment of a 
high salary relative to others in his field. The Director stated: 
The regulation requires the [Petitioner] to offer evidence showing that he has 
commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to others in the 
field, rather than being in the "top 10% of earners," "90th percentile," or average salary 
for his experience. As such, the beneficiary has not shown that his annual salary 
constitute[s] "a high salary" or "other significantly high remuneration for services" as 
compared to other Data Center and Network Engineers. 
The Director appears to fault the Petitioner for comparing his compensation to that of "network and 
computer systems administrators," rather than more specifically to that of data center/network 
engineers. USCIS guidance states that compensation surveys should be "geographical or position­
appropriate." 6 USCIS Policy Manual 6(F)(2)(B)(l) (emphasis added). The Petitioner's O*NET 
evidence satisfies the guidance. The O*NET information is geographically appropriate, as it 
specifically covers the Petitioner's metropolitan work area. Also, the O*NET information indicates 
that his duties as a data center/network engineer fall within those covered under "network and 
computer systems administrators." Further, the Petitioner submitted articles indicating that network 
and computer systems administrators in high-tech fields earn more than those, like the Petitioner, in 
3 
the pharmaceutical industry and that his metropolitan work area has attracted many high-tech 
businesses. Thus, the O*NET compensation information for network and computer systems 
administrators in his metropolitan work area likely exceeds the compensation of data center/network 
engineers in the pharmaceutical industry in his area. The Petitioner has therefore sufficiently 
demonstrated his commandment of a high salary relative to others in his field. 
B. Original Contributions of Major Significance 
The Petitioner contends that he satisfied another 
criterion by submitting evidence of his original 
contributions of major significance in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). But he has already 
earned a final merits determination by meeting a requisite third evidentiary requirement. Thus, we 
need not reach his appellate argument regarding evidence of his purported original contributions to his 
field. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 
516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant was 
otherwise ineligible). 
C. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Director found that the Petitioner met less than three evidentiary criteria, the Director did 
not conduct a final merits determination. Rather than make this determination in 
the first instance, we 
will remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director should conduct a final merits determination. 
To establish eligibility, the [P]etitioner must demonstrate that [he] has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in 
[his] field of expertise, indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. The [Director] should consider the petition in 
its entirety to determine eligibility according to the standard. 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(2). 
The Director should consider any potentially relative evidence of record, even if it does not fit one of 
the initial evidentiary requirements. Id. The petition's approval or denial depends on the evidence's 
type and quality, rather than on assumptions about the inability to meet different criteria. Id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Contrary to the Director's decision, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his commandment of a high 
salary in his field. As he has met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, USCIS must 
conduct a final merits determination on his petition. 
4 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5