dismissed EB-1A Case: Asset Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22678669 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 3, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an asset manager specializing in insurance and pensions, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, she did not show her sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 in the area of 
extraordinary 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 
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 that 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) (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. 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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that she received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met three of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria relating to published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), participation as a judge 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show that she garnered sustained national 
or international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, 
demonstrating that she is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. On 
appeal, we will review the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination 
below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate 
whether she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or 
international acclaim, 2 that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
1 Meeting the minimum requirement of providing required initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the person in 
fact meets the requirements for extraordinary ability classification. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A) (stating that "such acclaim must be maintained" and providing Black's Law 
Dictionary 's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time, and to persist in making 
an effort over a long period of time). 
2 
and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze an individual's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if her 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. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her 
eligibility. 
At initial filing, the Petitioner indicated that since 2005 she has served as "the Director of the Pension 
Market and R&D Center and the Asset Custody Department in She provided 
a statement asserting: 
I have over 20 years of experience in assets management, including more than 15 years 
of experience serving retirees and senior citizens. I received a Ph.D. degree in 
management and have extensive knowledge of the financial market. I have the skills 
and networks required to acquire high-net-worth clients from China. After working for 
over 20 years in the financial industry, I have developed personal wealth, business 
acumen, and deep investment expertise. 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner has presented published material about her, has 
judged the work of others, and has authored scholarly articles, the record does not demonstrate that 
she enjoys a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among 
the small percentage at the very top of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
As it relates to published material, the Petitioner offered a 2018 article in China Enterprise News 
briefly mentioning her experience and then interviewing her about I I I I She also presented documents indicating that she was interviewed 
by !Televisions in Beijing" for I lnews" programming inl 12018, but the 
record does not include an actual transcript of the television report. 4 In addition, the Petitioner 
provided video screenshots which she claims show multiple 2018 interviews of her by China 
Securities Journal staff that appeared on the Xinhua News mobile app. 5 Furthermore, the record 
includes a 2018 article fromMBAChina.com, entitled I 
6 
While the Petitioner indicated that she has worked in her field for more than 20 years, she did not 
present any media coverage of her prior to or after 2018. The Petitioner therefore did not demonstrate 
that her press coverage is consistent with the "sustained" national or international acclaim necessary 
for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCTS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 Without a transcript from the television program, the Petitioner has not shown that the coverage was about her. 
5 These interviews are about the Chinese pension system, insurance, and retirement planning rather than the Petitioner. 
6 The author of this article was not identified. 
3 
did not show how the aforementioned media coverage is indicative of a level of success with being 
among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting on her and her 
activities reflect a career of acclaimed work in the field. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides 
that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is 
reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than 
that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Here, the 
Petitioner's media exposure limited to 2018 does not meet this very high standard. For example, 
almost all of the media coverage involves the Petitioner discussing topics such as insurance and 
pensions rather than material about Petitioner and her accomplishments. 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 7 The Petitioner 
submitted a March 2019 letter from the "Editorial Office ofl I stating 
that she reviewed 10 manuscripts for that journal in 2018. She also provided a March 2019 letter from 
the "Editorial Office ofl I stating that she reviewed 21 manuscripts for that journal 
since 2018. Both letters state that reviewers for each journal "are all experts in the insurance industry." 
At issue here is the extent to which the Petitioner's peer review activities have required, reflected, or 
resulted in her being nationally or internationally acclaimed. The Petitioner, however, did not present 
documentation indicating the aforementioned journals' specific requirements for selection of peer 
reviewers. For instance, reviewing manuscripts for journals that select their reviewers based on 
subject matter expertise would not provide strong support for the petition, because possessing 
expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than sustained national or international 
acclaim, and an individual who is among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Nor is there 
objective supporting evidence (such as journal rankings from an independent source) demonstrating 
the stature of and I to show that the Petitioner's peer 
review service is reflective of national or international acclaim. 
Therefore, although the record shows that the Petitioner has reviewed multiple journal articles for 
I I and I I this evidence does not demonstrate how her 
peer review activity compares to or differentiates her from her peers in the field. Similarly, the 
evidence in the record does not show that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim 
for her service as a peer reviewer. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. Without this or other evidence 
differentiating her from others in her field, the Petitioner has not established how her peer review 
experience contributes to establishing that she is among that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
7 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), supra (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated to determine 
whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and 
enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
The Petitioner also rovided documentation indicatin that she served as a jud e at the 
2018 
She has not shown, however, that serving as a 
judge at this construction and development conference involved judging the work of others in her field 
of asset management (specializing in insurance and pensions) or in an allied field. Additionally, the 
submitted documentation does not indicate whose work the Petitioner judged, their stature in the field, 
the re uirements for selection as a jud e or the resti e associated with servin as a jud e at 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her judging at this 
conference contributes to a finding that she has a career of acclaimed work in the field or the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. For instance, the Petitioner did not establish that she garnered wide attention from the field based 
on her service as a judge. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that her judging experience places 
her among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her judging experience is consistent with the 
"sustained" national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. While the Petitioner asserted that she has worked in her field for 
more than 20 ears, her · ud in ex erience for 
_____________ is limited to 2018 and early 2019. Accordingly, she has not 
demonstrated that her service as a judge is indicative of "sustained" acclaim. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. 8 Although 
the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she has authored one article in China Finance, 
one article in Journal of Central University of Finance and Economics, parts of a two-volume book 
series, and a book chapter, she did not demonstrate that her publication record is consistent with having 
a career of acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 
and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Nor did the Petitioner submit evidence showing the significance 
of her authorships or how her overall publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the very 
top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's published work 
can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and 
whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for articles 
authored by the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that 
others have been influenced by her work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner provided information from 
CNKI.net reflecting that the Petitioner's published work has been cited almost 60 times. The record, 
however, does not include comparative statistics indicating how often others in the Petitioner's field 
are cited. While the citation of her work shows that some in her field have referenced it, the Petitioner 
8 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2). supra (providing that publications should be evaluated to determine whether they 
were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoying 
sustained national or international acclaim). 
5 
has not established that such citations are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in the field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 9 See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to her work represent attention at a level 
consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. As it relates 
to her roles, the Petitioner has been serving as the Director of the Pension Market and R&D Center 
and the Asset Custody Department atl I since 2005. The Petitioner also presented 
letters of appointment assigninFi her as a "mentor" for the MBA programs at bothl I I !University andl University I I In addition, she provided a letter informing her 
of her appointment as a "Council Member" of the Pension Branch of the I I I I However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her positions are reflective of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. The 
Petitioner did not show that her roles with I 
University! !University I and the Pension Branch of th I I I have earned distinction, garnering a level of attention consistent with being among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Nor did she establish that any of 
her roles resulted in widespread acclaim from her field, that she drew significant attention from the 
greater field, or that the overall field considers her to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
In addition the Petitioner rovided an Au ust 2018 letter invitin eak at the I 
in 
from 8 to 10 September." She has not shown, however, that speaking at this construction summit 
signifies national or international acclaim in the field of asset management. 1° Further, the Petitioner 
did not provide evidence from the organizers of this summit indicating that they reserve their speaking 
invitations for those at the very top of her field. The Petitioner's participation in the aforementioned 
summit may demonstrate that her work was shared with individuals in the construction industry, but 
it does not show that she has sustained national or international acclaim in the field of asset 
management for insurance and pensions. 
With regard to her salary, the Petitioner provided "Salary and Tax" statements reflecting earnings of 
RMB $365,539 in 2016, $367,120 in 2017, and $336,389 in 2018. She also presented a Kelly 
Services 2017 China Salary Guide listing minimum and maximum RMB annual salary amounts for 
various occupations in the "Banking and Financial Services" sector. 11 For example, the guide lists the 
minimum salary for both an "Equity Research Director" and a "Corporate Finance Director" with 10-
15 years of experience as RMB $1,000,000, which is much higher than the Petitioner's salary in 2016, 
9 Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated how citation to her articles, individually or collectively, compares to those who are 
nationally or internationally recognized in her field. 
10 The accompanying itinerary for this construction summit indicates that its focus was on rural revitalization and 
development rather than asset management for insurance and pensions. 
11 The Petitioner does not specify which occupational titles in the ·'Banking and Financial Services" sector most closely 
align with her position as "Director of the Pension Market and R&D Center and the Asset Custody Department" at 
1 1 
6 
2017, and 2018. The Petitioner's evidence did not show that she has earned a high salary or 
significantly high remuneration in comparison with those performing similar services in the field. See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. 
App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is 
not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 
( considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-
45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) ( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
Without documentation demonstrating that the Petitioner's compensation constituted a high salary or 
was significantly high in relation to others in the field, she has not demonstrated that her earnings 
place her among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner also offered recommendation letters discussing her work for and 
her standing in the field. 12 For exampleJ l professor a University, indicated 
that the Petitioner "developed a pension management product, which is a prototype similar to United 
States' personal pension plans in China." I I further stated: "Not only did her product lay the 
foundations for the development of a personal pension account similar to that of the United States in 
China, but it also promoted the design of multiple pension funds that were approved by the China 
Securities Regulatory Commission." In addition, I I professor atl I I I asserted that the Petitioner "is highly regarded in her field as she has achieved great 
success in the design and development of individual pension products. Her talents and achievements 
are invaluable assets which would be beneficial to any company she serves." 
FurthermoreJ I professor atl I University, stated that the Petitioner "designed 
the pension security management fund and custody forl I and that she "is one of 
the most highly respected and accomplished experts in individual plans among her peers in the field." 
Similarly] I professor atl I University, asserted that "[h ]aving worked in the 
sphere of pension finance for 14 years, [ the Petitioner] is one of the chief experts in the field of pension 
business." 
The recommendation letters offered by the Petitioner, however, did not contain sufficient information 
and explanation, nor did the record include corroborating evidence, to show that she is viewed by the 
overall field, rather than by a solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Additionally, the evidence did not establish that 
she has made impactfol or influential contributions in the field reflecting a career of acclaimed work 
in the field, garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 
59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The letters described the Petitioner's work without showing 
how it represents an individual who has garnered sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
12 While we discuss a sampling of these recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
toward the top. See Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level athletes do 
not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). In the present matter, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top 
of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8