sustained EB-1A Case: Telecommunications

PUBLIC COPY 
deta ddeted to 
olearty wwmnted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. ~iemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the 
petition will be approved. 
The petitioner, a telecommunications company, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary has satisfied at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 30, 2005, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as Director of Architecture, Research and Development, at Kodiak Networks, Inc. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten 
criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualifjl as an alien of extraordinary ability. We find that the petitioner's evidence meets the following three 
criteria. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary's invention of a dispatch service architecture framework meets this 
criterion. Counsel states: "This invention relates to wireless communications systems, and more specifically, to a 
dispatch service providing 'push-to-talk' or 'instant calling' services in a cellular telephone system." 
A letter of support from hief ~xecutive Officer and President, Kodiak Networks, states: 
In 2003, [the beneficiary's] Dispatch Service Architecture Framework international application was 
published. The record of [the beneficiary] is truly extraordinary in that he is one of only a few able to 
successfully apply the technical and scientific principles of dispatch service in a cellular telephone system 
to practical solutions. . . . [The beneficiary] has invented an innovative and critical wireless systems 
communications tool. His work has been assigned to Kodiak Networks, a leader in the wireless systems 
industry. . . . With the possession and use of such technology, Kodiak holds valuable intellectual 
property, providing it the marketplace edge. Indeed, industry leaders know that this powerful, innovative 
and cost effective dispatch service architecture framework will differentiate the service offerings by 
present wireless networks and provide a competitive edge. 
A letter of support from Co-Founder, and Chief Technology Officer, Kodiak Networks, states that the 
beneficiary's invention provides "group-based dispatch services that use existing networks with minimal 
- - 
 - 
changes." wer states: 
We jointly conceived the innovative idea of developing Push To Talk technology for existing GSM 
[Global System for Mobile communications] and CDMA [Code Division Multiple Access] cellular 
networks, which led to be core [sic] of our invention and led to the growth of Kodiak Networks. 
The dispatch service architecture framework of the present invention allows the wireless network to 
provide an instantaneous voice messaging service wherein a group of users can exchange voice messages 
at any time from anywhere in the network. . . . Our invention discloses an apparatus for providing group 
voice services in a wireless network, comprising dispatch [sic] gateway that interfaces to the wireless 
network to provide the group services therein, wherein both the dispatch gateway and mobiles that use 
the group voice services communicated with each other using call setup and in-band signaling with the 
wireless network. It is important to note that such patent has been filed with the patent and trademark 
offices in the U.S., Europe and Japan. 
The petitioner also submitted intellectual property documentation showing that the beneficiary is an inventor of 
the dispatch service architecture framework. More importantly, the petitioner submitted articles printed fiom 
Cingular Wireless' internet site, Lucent Technologies' internet site, Infoworld, EE Times, Telecom Redzlx, 
Wireless Week, Morningstar Business Wire, Forbes, Yahoo's "Financial News" web page, Telephony Online, 
Wall Street Reporter, Andrew Seybold's 4Mobilility "Outlook" web page, and The Dallas Morning News 
indicating that the beneficiary's innovation is being widely utilized both nationally and internationally. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner reflects that the beneficiary's technology has been deployed 
throughout the telecommunications industry by companies such as Cingular, Alltell Communications, Amp'd 
Mobile, Bluegrass Cellular, Carolina West, Cellcom, East Kentucky Network, Samsung, Sony Ericcson, and 3 
Rivers Wireless. 
In light of the above, we find that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The record adequately establishes that the petitioner is an organization with a distinguished reputation. For 
example, several media reports submitted by the petitioner describe Kodiak Networks as a leading advanced 
wireless systems provider for cellular service carriers. The record further reflects that the beneficiary plays a 
leading and critical role for the petitioner as its Director of Architecture, Research and Development. Thus, 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign@cantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the$eld 
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, showing that he earned 
- - 
$193:052.16 in 2004 and a letter fro- Human Resources ~anager stating the beneficiary 
receives a gross annual salary of $160,000.00. The petitioner also submitted national wage statistics showing 
that the beneficiary's compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Therefore, we find 
the petitioner's evidence is adequate to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary has satisfied three of the regulatory criteria required for classification as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. Pursuant to the statute and regulations as they are currently constituted, the 
beneficiary qualifies for classification sought. 
In this case, the totality of the evidence establishes an overall pattern of sustained national acclaim and 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has also established that the beneficiary seeks to continue working in the 
same field in the United States and that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has overcome the stated grounds for denial and thereby 
established the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefits sought under section 203 of the Act. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the director denying 
the petition will be withdrawn and the petition will be approved. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.