dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: :Eg 2 2 Tm5 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 8 1153(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. 
i Robert P. ~iemann, Director 
i Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
business. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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. 
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. fj 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. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a senior quantitative analyst. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
While counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion, we will discuss the evidence relating to 
it. The petitioner is a charterholder and member of the 
m. Regular membership in requires either 
experience, passage of Level 1 of the CFA exam, and three years of "acceptable professional work experience" 
or (2) passage of the AZMR Self Administered Standards of Professional Practice Examination, six years "of 
acceptable professional work experience in the investment decision-making process," engagement in acceptable 
professional work at the time of application and an agreement to adhere to and sign the Member's Agreement 
and a Professional Conduct Statement. Charterholders must satisfy both the regular membership requirements 
"and the requirements of the CFA Progam established by The letter confirming the petitioner's 
charterholder status asserts that this status is based on passage of Levels I, LI, and 111 of the CFA Study and 
Examination Program. 
The petitioner is also a member of the - of Chicago Membership 
requirements are similar to those of In addition, the petitioner is a member of the Econometric Society. 
While fellows of the society are nominated by current fellows based on their original contributions to economic 
theory, no such exclusive requirements are set forth for the general membership. Rather, membership "shall be 
open to anyone seriously interested in the objectives of the Society." The record contains no specific 
requirements for membership in the American Economic Association, or the Western Finance Association, of 
which the petitioner is also a member. 
A degree, number of years of experience, and even passage of a competitive examination are not outstanding 
achievements in the field as judged by recognized national experts. Thus, we concur with the director that the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedjield of speciJication for which classzjication is sought. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion both through his job respon3ibilities of evaluating his 
subordinates and his invitations to referee submitted articles for economic journals. The petitioner submitted a 
letter from an Associate Professor at Rutgers University and associate editor for two 
economic journals, confirming that the petitioner "was invited as a journal referee" for three papers. We note 
that Dr indicates in another letter that he was the petitioner's Ph.D. academic advisor at Pennsylvania 
State University. 
The director concluded that work responsibilities are not the type of judging contemplated by the regulations 
and that the record lacked evidence of the selection criteria for serving as a reviewer. On appeal, counsel asserts 
that the director did not request such evidence in the request for additional evidence and asserts that only experts 
in the field are chosen to review articles submitted for publication. The petitioner submits another request to 
review an article. This request is dated after the date of filing and cannot be considered evidence of the 
petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg. Comm. 1971). 
All of the evidence must be evaluated as to whether it is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. Not every supervisor, editor, teacher or coach is one of the very few at the top of his or her field. As 
such, we concur with the director that one's supervisory job duties are not the type of judging contemplated by 
the regulations. The petitioner's role for his employer will be considered below. 
Page 4 
In addition, being requested to review an article by one's own former advisor is not evidence of national or 
international acclaim. Moreover, we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many 
scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys 
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his 
field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests 
from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scierat$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the$eld. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his work had been recognized for its 
significance. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in failing to consider the reference letters 
submitted in support of the petition. We will consider these letters below. 
~r a senior economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), asserts that the petitioner 
provided "helpful service for the mutual understanding of economic conditions" between the United States and 
China as an exchange student in 1988. He concludes that the petitioner's recent work "would enhance the 
understanding of futures market[s] and benefit U.S. farmers." 
~r.- asserts that the petitioner's work provides ''new methods to understand and forecast price 
movement in national markets," which can promote stability of these markets by providing more accurate 
forecasts. In one of his articles, the petitioner "redefined the tim 'mean reversion."' ~~ecificai~, the petitioner 
"used an equilibrium model to derive the relationship between future and spot prices with a second derivative 
and using daily data to test the pattern of price movement in relation to mean reversion." Dr. - 
characterizes this work as "ground breaking" and "a significant contribution to financial market research." Dr. 
otes that the work was accepted for presentation and publication. 
In a second article. the petitioner "urouosed and tested new selection criteria to combine different forecasts." . A 
Dr. f haracterizes this work as "cutting edge." He concludes that the work "will revolutionize the way 
forecasts are made" and opines that this method's "potential application is no doubt economy wide." Finally, - - 
the petitioner used novel iools to calculate mean reversions "never being done before" and "tested arbitrage 
strategies that took advanced of his models." Dr. asserts that this work "was significant in helping the 
industry to understand better how prices co-moved and whether there were profitable ways to trade on those 
irregular co-movements." 
In order to establish eligibility under this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate contributions already viewed 
in the field as having major significance. The assurances of one's coauthor and mentor that one's work may 
eventually have such an impact is insufficient. The record contains no evidence that the papers referenced by 
Dr. been widely cited, are routinely used as reading material in multiple economics courses 
around the nation, or are relied upon by multiple investment firms beyond the petitioner's employer. 
At the time of rincipal researcher at 
a divisio Director of Research 
of independent cing less biased recommendations than Wall Street 
companies affiliated with investment ba The importance of one's field does not mandate a 
finding that any contribution to that field is a contribution of major significance to the field. Rather, we must 
evaluate the actual impact the petitioner's work has had. 
Mr. asserts that stock selection models are "well known in the industry'' and that the petitioner 
"has been instrumental in improving several key aspects" of Fsigned Value Alert (VA) model, one of 
its "most successful products." Mr. that VA pro uced a low rating for Enron stock prior to the 
disclosures of its accounting abuses and asserts that "Schwab has launched a nationwide campaign to make the 
model-based Schwab Equity Rating available to the general public." Finally, Mrqasserts that the 
petitioner correctly predicted how the market would react to the Goodwill accounting ru e c anges provided 
"insightful and unmatched" conclusions on the usefulness of legal insider stock trading information. 
Prior to his employment for the petitioner worked as an equity analyst for 
If 
Investment Management, 
Inc. , former Chief Investment Officer at reiterates the impo ance of unbiased market 
research. Mrasserts that the petitioner's work at rn benefited the company's clients and "enhanced 
the development of quantitative disciplines in the investment management business." Mr.'rovides 
several examples of models the petitioner either developed or improved at asserting that they were more 
accurate and state of the art than models at other companies. The record contains no evidence that these models 
have influenced the field, such as newspaper articles attesting to the accuracy of Aeltus models or attestations 
from other investment firms. 
The only claim to rely on the petitioner's models is from ~r. Director of Research at one om 
clients, Traveler's Investment Management Company. That the petitioner has produced models used by the 
clients of his employer is not indicative of the model's major significance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a new letter from Mr. 
asserts that the models developed by the petitioner allow greater accuracy and earlier detection of 
aberrant stock behavior. ~r.notes thatas many large financial management companies with their 
own in-house research teams as clients, demonstrating the impact of the petitioner's work. The petitioner 
submitted a list o clients. 
The petitioner was hired by-to devise and improve econometric models. The record establishes that he is 
succeeding at his job. Successful fulfilnment of one's job duties is not necessarily a contribution of major 
significance. whipmay have several prestigious clients, the record lacks evidence that these are new 
clients attracted to based on the notoriety of the petitioner's models. As with the petitioner's models for 
the record contains no evidence that trade publications have noted the superiority oms econometrics 
models. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the economic community. An 
economic researcher is expected to develop and improve economic models. It does not follow that every 
researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge or who develops 
improved models has made a contribution of major signzficance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted copies of his four authored articles and his presentation. The director concluded that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. Citations or similar evidence demonstrating the impact this work has had on 
the field would have made the petitioner's claim to meet this criterion more persuasive. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel did not initially assert that the petitioner meets this criterion. In his decision, the director concluded 
that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, despite never having previously claimed that the 
petitioner meets this criterion, counsel challenges the director's conclusion as a "disregard for the evidence we 
have submitted." Counsel now asserts that the petitioner is a Senior Quantitative Analyst for a critical role 
for the success of the company. While counsel refers to an attached organization chart and position 
descriptions, that evidence was not included with the appeal. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner was a principal researcher at ~r. describes the petitioner as a 
"key contributor" ta research platforms. We have already considered the petitioner's contributions above. 
In evaluating a claim to meet this criterion, we look at the nature of the role the petitioner was hired to fill. The 
record lacks evidence regarding how many princi a1 researchers work fom The record does not confirm 
that principal researchers play a critical role for eabove and beyond the obvious fact that business 
requires it to employ competent researchers. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the level two wage in Zone 5 for financial analysts is $61,797. The 
petitioner also submitted a letter from Charles Schwab confirming his employment as a Principal Researcher 
with a division of Charles Schwab, with a salary of $120,000. The director concluded that the petitioner 
had not compared his salary with those in the same occupation. 
On appeal, counsel does not address this criterion. In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must provide 
evidence not that he earns more than the prevailing wage, but that his salary compares with the wages of the 
most experienced and renowned experts in the field nationwide. Such evidence is lacking in the record. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a senior 
quantitative analyst to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field: The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a senior quantitative analyst, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.