sustained EB-1A Case: App Development

.
MATTER OF P-P-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 21 , 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORK ER 
The Petitioner , an application (app) developer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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 dismissed the petition , concluding that the Petitioner 
satisfied only one of the ten regulatory criteria , of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets an additional three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review , we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follo~s: 
(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 
extraordin .ary 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 
.
Matter of P-P-M-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide 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 individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0).
1 
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 quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the cofounder of an app development company with a number 
of successful apps. He was previously a software engineer for and the 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied one 
criterion because he had served as the judge of the work of others in the same or a related field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record suppm1s this determination. Specifically, he judged software 
and hardware projects at as well as an entrepreneurial competition in Spain that 
had 700 participants. He also was one of four reviewers of a guide entitled ' 
by 
At issue, then, is whether he has satisfied an additional two criteria. For the reasons discussed 
below, we determine that he has. Specifically, he has presented published material about him and 
documented his leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. We 
further find that the evidence in the aggregate is indicative of his eligibility for the classification. 
1 
This case discusses 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 
.
Matter of P-P-M-
A. Regulatory 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. 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). 
The Director concluded that the relevant materials in the record were not about the Petitioner, were 
broadcast rather than published, or did not appear in a qualifying publication. The record 
demonstrates that he has satisfied this criterion. While some of the articles are about apps 
that, at most, mention him, one of the articles in 
discusses him and his brother at length, explaining how they came to work on apps. 
This article is sufficiently "about" the Petitioner. In addition, exhibits with the appellate submission 
confirm that qualifies as major media because it 
has a readership of 815,000 and is the 
second most popular newspaper in Spain for both readership and circulation. Accordingly, we find 
that the Petitioner has established that he 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). 
The Director considered this criterion together with the contributions of major significance criterion 2 
because the Petitioner is self-employed and concluded that he had not demonstrated the influence of 
his company in the field. Regardless of whether a petitioner is self-employed, the requirements for 
this criterion and the contributions criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) are different and do 
not lend themselves to one analysis. Specifically, at issue for this criterion is not whether the 
Petitioner's company has influenced the field but whether it enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Notably, there are ways other than influencing the field for a business to earn a distinguished 
reputation. 
The article in identifies the Petitioner and his brother as founders of and the 
creators of its most utilized app, Accordingly, the Petitioner. performs a leading or 
critical role for that company. Information in the record, including independent data from 
corroborates that three of the company's apps have between one and five 
users. an app magazine, published an interview with the· Petitioner and his 
brother entitled · The introduction promises "tips and useful 
information that you cannot miss." We are satisfied that these materials are consistent with a finding 
thatthe app developing business enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
2 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
3 
.
Matter of P-P-M-
B. Final Merits Determination 
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. If so, a petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof and 
established eligibility for visa classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. As discussed below, the record in the aggregate is consistent with a finding that the 
Petitioner, whose past experience includes working at and then during the 
development of the is among the small percentage at the top ofhis field. 
The Petitioner not only served as a judge of the work of others, but the level of this experience is 
notable. with which he has no affiliation, sought his services as a judge of 
software and hardware projects. In addition, co-founder of· explains that the 
prestige of the mentors "gave solid credit to the contest" and that he invited the Petitioner to 
participate as ajudge because he is a "highly regarded expert in mobile tech and the entrepreneurial 
spaces." Finally, he was one of a small number of credited reviewers for a published guide that 
included biographies of all the reviewers. 
The media coverage of the Petitioner and his work is also favorable. The article 
mentioned above describes him and his brother as "pioneers in developing applications" for the 
The interview in characterizes them as "experts in the development of 
apps and their promotion." A second article in 
' details how they have founded a new startup, to "give voice to businesses so 
they can communicate automatically with their customers." While the other published material is 
not about the Petitioner, it is relevant in the final merits determination that one of his apps received 
considerable news coverage in the general media. 
Further, the Petitioner has founded successful companies and developed successful apps. The 
number of installations of his apps ranks them within the top percentage of all 
According to a television interview with the Petitioner, an app that allows users to avoid the 
' for was downloaded more than 15,000 times in just three days. The 
' ' article indicates that was a top in more than 10 
countries and users were sharing icons daily with this app. while newer, is one of 
10 companies participating in the m patinership with 
and According to press release, the "innovative 
technologies, services, and business models of the companies in the program position them to be 
leaders in determining the future of retail and commerce." 
Finally, the letters in the record are consistent with a finding that the field recognizes the Petitioner's 
achievements. For example, General Manager at a business 
process outsourcing company, affirms that he enlisted the Petitioner's services after "a worldwide 
4 
Matter of P-P-M-
screening of the best specialists in the field of mobile technologies, and in particular, in the nascent 
field of bot technology." The above accomplishments, in addition to other documentation in the 
record, are indicative of the Petitioner's acclaim and status in the top percentage of his field. Thus, 
they establish his eligibility for the classification he seeks. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability through the 
satisfaction of three criteria and evidence indicative ofhis sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as recognition in the field. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of P-P-M-, ID# 448433 (AAO Aug. 21, 2017) 
5