sustained EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-B-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 28, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer science researcher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 53(b )(1 )(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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that he only met two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he qualifies as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
Matter of O-B-A-
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 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 of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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. USCIS, 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). 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a computer science researcher focusing on context-aware design and human­
computer interaction. As he has not established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for judging and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), respectively, but not for membership, published material, contributions of 
major significance, leading or critical role, or high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), 
(viii), and (ix). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the criteria for contributions of major 
significance, leading or critical role, and high salary. 1 Here, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
established that he meets the criteria for judging, scholarly articles, and leading or critical role. 
Specifically, the record reflects that the Petitioner has judged the work of others in having reviewed 
manuscripts for the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, the Journal of Medical Internet 
Research, and the International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, among others. Next, for 
scholarly articles, the Petitioner has published articles meeting the requirements of this criterion in 
IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, in Intelligent Decision Technologies, 
and in Procedia Computer Science. Finally, the record reflects that the Petitioner performed a critical 
role fo~ I an organization with a distinguished reputation, through his work in developing two 
1 The Petitioner has not raised the membership or published material criteria on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
and (iii). 
2 
Matter of O-B-A-
.__ ___ ~I systems that improved productivity and employee satisfaction within ~ This 
demonstrates that the Petitioner meets three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Accordingly, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has established that he meets the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether 
he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international 
acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of 
endeavor. 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. Here, the Petitioner has shown his eligibility for this classification. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received his bachelor's degree in computer science from the 
University of I O I in 2000, his master's degree in distributed systems from the University of 
I I lin 2007, and his doctorate degree in computer science from the University ofi I lin 
2012. Following his doctorate degree, he wjs empllyed as a research staff member foie=] and he 
is currently a user experience researcher for As will be discussed further below, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner has organized, and presented at, numerous international conferences; he has 
performed leading and critical roles ate=] which further resulted in his recognition as a leader in the 
field both within and out of the company; and he has commanded a high salary in relation to others in 
his field. Each of these aspects, together with the evidence discussed further below, support a finding 
that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor with sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
Regarding his service as a judge of others, the record reflects that he has served on the editorial board 
for the Future Generation Computer Systems journal, he has conducted peer-reviews for prestigious 
journals, and he has reviewed research funding proposals for the National Research Foundation of the 
As serving on an editorial board and performing these reviews are 
reflective of a high level of responsibility, we find the Petitioner's judging experience to be consistent 
with a determination that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record establishes the importance of the Petitioner's original contributions to 
including, among others, the I I and the 
.__ ___ __,.--------....,__..,........._I_n_h_i_s_s_e_c_,ond letter in the record,'-------~-----' 
director of.__.....,,... _____ ..--_ ___. for.__ ____ ....,.. states that "[t]he design of the architecture 
framework for the.__ _ _. was [the Petitioner's] responsibility, and the original work product ... 
resulted in a patent filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offi9e, demonstrating its originality" 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner is the inventor of a patent t I 
'---------------------' ' which ~ featured in 2014 at its international 
conference. While we note that the record does not establish to what extent the Petitioner's role in 
3 
Matter of O-B-A-
these patent filings brought acclaim to himself individually, we find that this evidence demonstrates 
that he is performing at a high level in his field which, with the evidence discussed below, 
demonstrates that he has risen to the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner's contributions are indicative of his acclaim, as the record demonstrates that he has 
delivered keynote speeches, given presentations, organized workshops, and co-chaired internationally 
reco nized conferences. the principal lecturer in applied artificial intelligence 
at.__ ________ __.University, states that "[the Petitioner's] research has been presented at 
international and national conferences in more than ten countries" and that most of these are "premium 
conferences sponsored by .__ __________________ _. or I ~ two of the 
most prestigious bodies in computer science world-wide." For example, the record reflects that he 
gave a keynote address at the 2013 International Conference I I 
I I in the UAE. He also presented at the 201 ~~-------------------'· 
I I in Florida. The record also reflects that he organized 
workshops at conferences in Maryland and in~ Norway and that he co-chaired influential 
international forums, including the 2014 International Conference on 
I I in Minnesota. Accordingly, we find that the recognition t~h_e_P_e_t-it-io_n_e_r_r_e_c_e-iv_e_d_,_fi_o_r_b_o_th__. 
organizing and presenting at these conferences, together with other evidence in the record, demonstrate 
that his achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
While the publication of a petitioner's written work does not automatically place one at the top of the 
field, we note that the Petitioner has published a considerable number of scholar! articles man of 
which were presented at the international conferences discussed above. 
principal research staff member atl I and an adjunct professor at University in 
Denmark, states that "[ the Petitioner's] research in the areas ofl I and its relation to 
I I have been favorably reviewed and sought after by others working in complementary 
research domains." Similarly,~----~ a professor at thel !University in Dubai, indicates 
that "[the Petitioner] is very well published" and that his articles "have been published in the last eight 
years in top-notch conferences and scholarly peer-reviewed journals with international 
circulation .... " He states that "[the Petitioner's] research is both practical and insightful in that it 
considers real world social and business models as they interact with the world for the design of 
technological solutions and context aware designs." Accordingly, the record reflects that the 
Petitioner's scholarly articles have received praise from other researchers and have been featured in 
prominent publications or conferences, which together demonstrate that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field. 2 
With respect to the evidence of the Petitioner's leading or critical roles, the record reflects that his 
roles withinDhave contributed to his recognition both within the company, demonstrating that he 
has risen to the top of the field, and outside the company, establishing his acclaim and rroglition in 
the field. The record establishes that the Petitioner developed twq I systems at one of 
which is the.__ _______________ _. system, in which employees could contribute 
2 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 ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005- l .pdf. 
4 
Matter of O-B-A-
to areas at D beyond the scope of their job duties, where projects are posted throu h social 
platforms. I I the principal scientist and senior mana er at the esearch 
Center in and a former scientist and manager at .__ ____ ____. describes the 
Petitioner's role in the developments. She states that he introduced the concept and led the 
technical development of.___~which "allows organizations to get optimal return on the investments 
they make in training their emplloyees ti acquire new skills .... " The record contains documentation 
related to the pilot study of the process, identifying and the Petitioner in leading 
roles for the program. In addition, the record contains letters from the dean of the 
College of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of anO 
Fellow, and former director in the I in which she explains the 
Petitioner's role in developing these I I systems. She states that "[the Petitioner's] solution 
led to significant increases in employee satisfaction, higher productivity and increased flexibility for 
employees, and a double digit increase in return on employee training investment." The Petitioner's 
development of the I lsystem and its results within the company are indicative that the Petitioner 
has risen to the very top of the field. 
While the Petitioner's work on thel I system demonstrates his recognition and expertise within 
D the record reflects that his other roles within the company also contributed to his reco nition in 
the field. I I states that the Petitioner served as "the coordinator of the '---------;====;!, 
I I, a bi-monthly.__ _______ __,Distinguished Seminar Series that brings together~~ 
and renowned researchers and thought leaders in academia, industry, and government to discuss and 
share expertise in the most important aspects of analytics and big data." She goes on to claim that the 
Petitioner and his colleagues "hosted over twenty guest speakers from notable institutions including 
Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Research Lab, Google, Linkedin, e-Bay, and [the] 
University of California, Berkeley,just to name a few." She adds that "[t]his event is live streamed to 
all ofl I labs on six continents," concllding !lat he helped "advance the I I 
into a leading seminar series in and a notable platform for fostering 
collaboration with universities and other industrial research and IT organizations as well as for 
generating and sharing ideas in and around big data analytics." Accordingly, the Petitioner's work on 
the'---------~--- including the connections he made with leaders outside of~in 
furthering that endeavor, and the forum's reach to universities and other organizations is an indication 
that his achievements have been recognized in the field. 3 
When the evidence is considered in the aggregate, the Petitioner has demonstrated that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field to show 
that he is "one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" under 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3 ). 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
3 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 13. 
4 Id. 
5 
Matter of O-B-A-
his achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N 
Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 0-B-A-, ID# 2795048 (AAO June 28, 2019) 
6