sustained EB-1A Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF A-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 25.2016 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(A). 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or intemational acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director. Texas Service Center. denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not submit the necessary documentation to meet at least three initial evidence criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal. the Petitioner submits additional items and a 
brief. He indicates that he has satisfied at least three initial evidence criteria and shown that he has 
extraordinary ability as a computer scientist. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
( 1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
{A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts. education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or intemational 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 
Matter (?f A-C-
(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 analysis. First. a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria. however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria. considered 
in the context of a final merits determination). See also R(jal v. USCIS. 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.O. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian). a.frd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F.Supp.3d 126. 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that we appropriately applied 
the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the 
·'truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality'' and that we 
examine .. each piece of evidence for relevance. probative value. and credibility, both individuaiiy 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true''). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found the Petitioner did not submit the necessary initial evidence because he satisfied 
two, but not three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). Considering the new material the 
Petitioner presents on appeal, he has now provided initial documentation meeting at least three of the 
criteria. In addition, he has demonstrated extraordinary ability in a final merits determination by 
showing he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the tield of endeavor. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found the Petitioner provided evidence of (1) his participation as a judge of the work of 
others in the field, as well as (2) his authorship of scholarly articles in the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). (vi). The record supports this conclusion. Specifically. it contains documentation 
showing the Petitioner peer-reviewed articles published in conference proceedings and authored 13 
articles that appeared in scholarly publications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states he has provided documentation that meets other criteria, including 
evidence showing he has commanded a high salary or other remuneration for services. in relation to 
others in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Specifically, the Petitioner submits information 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-C-
from the U.S. Department of Labor"s Online Wage Library indicating that Level 4 Computer and 
Information Research Scientists make $120,016 per year.' The Petitioner ' s Forms W-2 reflect that, 
while working at , he received compensation in the amounts of $238.730.83 in 
2014. $235.000.02 in 2013, and $220,000.02 in 2012. This most recent salary is nearly double the 
U.S. Department of Labor's estimate for others in the field. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that these submissions show he has received a high salary 
in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). These documents therefore meet the 
plain language of the regulation and the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. As a result. the Petitioner 
has provided initial evidence sutlicient to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. 
B. Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqmstte initial evidence. we will conduct a final merits 
determination that considers the entire record in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated extraordinary ability as a computer scientist by corroborating that he enjoys a l evel of 
expertise indicating he is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2). (3); see also Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1119-20. Based on the filings, the Petitioner has made the requisite showing. 
In 2001, the Petitioner obtained a Bachelor's degree with honors in Computer Science and 
Engineering from the in India. The Petitioner 
received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the in 2007. 
Since completing his education , the Petitioner has worked for a series of investment management 
companies and investment banks, including Since October 
of 2011, he has had the title of Senior Principle Developer at 
Prior to leaving academia , the Petitioner authored thirteen scholarly papers published in conference 
proceedings and academic journals. A Google Scholar print-out lists the number of citation s to his 
m1icles to be 574 at the time ofthis petition's initial submission. with two articles having garnered 
over I 00 citations each.Z While we consider all evidence offered regarding the Petitioner's ability in 
the field, this level of citation indicates an interest in the Petitioner's activities consistent with 
someone who has reached the top of the field. 
Most ofthe Petitioner ' s articles appear in conference proceedings, such as those associated with the 
the the 
1 In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 90th percentile wage for this occupation is $1 70.610 . Si.!e 
www.bls.gov/oes/current /oes 151111.htm . 
1 While the Petitioner must demon strate eligibility at the time of filing , we note that the updated Google Scholar print-out 
the Petitioner submits on appeal shows the number of citations to the Petitioner 's articles had increased to 62 1 by May of 
2015 . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofA-C-
and the He provided a special 
insert from the explaining that, unique to computer scientists and 
engineering faculty, publication in conference proceedings is preferred over publication in journals 
in his field due to "the shorter time to print (7 months vs 1-2 years), the opportunity to describe the 
work before one's peers at a public presentation, and the more complete level of review (4-5 
evaluations per paper compared to 2-3 for an archival journal)." The import of these contributions is 
reinforced by documentation showing that others in the field contacted the Petitioner as they were 
interested in obtaining his work. He submitted copies of emails from Ph.D. students and computer 
scientists requesting for access to a tool the Petitioner developed. These emails were followed by 
the creation of a website for the tool so that others may find and access it. Finally, the Petitioner's 
presentations included in the proceedings ofthese conferences have garnered significant citation. 
The Petitioner has judged others in the field through peer review of articles. He provided 
documentation showing his review of papers for conference proceedings such as 
as well as for the journal, . Correspondence from editors 
indicates that the Petitioner's work as peer-reviewer is prized for the quality of his review and his 
instructive insights. 
Since October 2011, the Petitioner has worked at , 
a subsidiary of an Asia-
based financial services group founded in Japan in As noted above, the U.S. Department of 
Labor estimates the compensation of Level 4 Computer Scientists to be $120,016 per year. In 2014, 
the Petitioner received $238,730.83 through his position as a Senior Developer at , This 
amount of nearly double the estimated salary for someone in his position supports the Petitioner's 
position that he is one of the small percentage of those in the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Regarding the substance of the Petitioner's work at , he submitted a reference letter3 from 
his direct supervisor and Executive Director of the 
In his letter, stated that the Petitioner led the mortgage-backed 
securities analytics service, an important platform that the company's trading desk in uses 
each day to calculate the market value and risk numbers. He also noted the Petitioner's experience 
as the lead developer on a proprietary risk management system known as 
explained how plays an integral part in the trading desk and 
confirn1ed that Petitioner's improvements resulted in a reduction in the time necessary to run the 
application from over 40 minutes to under 2 minutes. wrote that the Petitioner's system 
freed up over $90 million of risk capitaL in addition to the savings acquired through no longer 
having to pay licensing fees of $1 million per quarter for the previous system. provided 
several other examples the Petitioner's work, indicating the substantive impact the Petitioner has had 
by creating programs that are less expensive, more efficient, and more accurate than previously used 
models. 
3 We have considered all reference letters in the record, but discuss only a sampling in this decision. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-C-
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Software & Systems Engineering Chair 
at the Department of Software & Systems Engineering, 
met the Petitioner at an 
which the Petitioner attended in 2004. stated that the Petitioner 
participated in the event as one of eighty applicants selected from around the world. In addition , he 
described the Petitioner 's contributions to the field made through published papers, and explained 
how the research he and colleagues are doing today expands on the achievements the Petitioner 
made over ten years ago. 
Similarly, a professor at the wrote a letter 
in which he stated that he found the Petitioner's research to be "very interesting. useful. and 
valuable, both for its theoretical content as well as its practical ability." He then identitied how 
concepts covered in the Petitioner's articles have been useful and influential for his own studies on 
related topics. For several of the Petitioner ' s papers, he explained why the findings presented were 
unique or important in the field. 
In summary, the Petitioner has shown through extensive citation, substantive peer-review, high 
salary, and continued achievements in private sector applications that he is one of that small 
percentage of those who have risen to the very top of his field. For the reasons enumerated above, 
we find that the Petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability in computer science. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown his extraordinar y ability by satisfying at least three regulator y criteria. as 
well as demonstratin g a level of expertise consistent with one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner has 
established that he seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in his area of extraordinar y 
ability. Section 203(b)(l )(A)(ii) of the Act. By confirming this intent, and there being no indication 
otherwise, we are satisfied that the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)( I )(A)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the Petitioner has met the burden of 
proof necessary to establish eligibility tor the benefit sought. Sections 203(b)( I )(A), 291 of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofA-C- , ID# 16153 (AAO Apr. 25, 2016) 
5