dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identfiy~ng tiaka uereteG 10 
pmat clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 090 52020 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 6 2005 
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 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 ofice. 
,J/ ' '-6 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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 etitioner had not established the sustained national or international P 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. 
$ 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 field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 27, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Financial Investment Advisor." At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Financial Advisor 
fo- 
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). 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "The Mombusho Scholarship Award, by Japan's Ministry of Education for 
four year scholarship for outstanding scholars is most decisively a well known internationally recognized 
award. The MBA from a prestigious Japanese university is an internationally recognized achievement." 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 3 
The regulation permitting eligibility based on a single award must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a 
small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. Examples of one-time awards 
which enjoy truly international recognition include the Nobel Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant 
for athletics) the Olympic Gold Medal. These prizes are "household names," recognized immediately even 
among the general public as being the highest possible honors in their respective fields. The petitioner's 
Master of Business Administration degree and Mombusho scholarship, which relate to academic training for 
future employment in the business field, do not meet this standard. These items will be further addressed 
below as lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized 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 claims eligibility under the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprize,~ or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter indicating that his annual gross production as a financial advisor in 2001 
qualified him for the President's Club award at Morgan Stanley. According to information submitted by the 
petitioner, an individual must "be one of the Firm's 800 top-performing Financial Advisors in annual gross 
production" to receive this award. We note that, above and beyond the President's Club award, there exists 
the Chairman's Club award, which requires that an individual "be one of the firm's top 175 performers in 
annual gross production." The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner's has achieved this 
level of recognition at Morgan Stanley. 
The petitioner also submitted a Certificate of Excellence declaring the petitioner "Top Producer" in the Fixed 
Income Division of Morgan Stanley in 2001. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from ice President, Global Assignment Services, 
who states: 
[The petitioner] received the prestigious Falcon Award for Performance Excellence for three - 
consecutive years. Recipients of the Falcon Award must be in the top five percent - 
producers in their first three years of service. In addition to the Falcon Award, [the petitioner] has won 
the Chairman's Award for the last two years. This award is given to those who are among the top five 
percent of producers after having received the Falcon Award. 
The preceding awards from the petitioner's former employer, and current employer, Morgan 
Stanley, are representative of institutional recognition, rather recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that his M.B.A. degree from Sophia University in Japan and his Mombusho 
Scholarship Award qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his 
field of endeavor. In regard to the petitioner's M.B.A. degree from Sophia University, we note that university 
study is not a field of endeavor, but, rather,,training for future employment in a field of endeavor. An 
advanced degree may indicate that the petitioner has fulfilled certain academic requirements at a given 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 4 
university, but it does not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the business field. In regard to the petitioner's Mombusho scholarship, we note that the record lacks 
supporting evidence regarding the exclusive nature of this fellowship. We note here that scholarships are 
generally presented for scholastic achievement and the pursuit of further academic study rather than for 
excellence in one's field. The most established and experienced businesspeople, who are employed in their 
own right and do not apply for academic scholarships, are ineligible for consideration for such awards and 
therefore we cannot conclude that an individual selected for a graduate scholarship stands at the very top of 
his field. Nor are we persuaded that obtaining financial support for one's studies is a rare mark of acclaim or 
extraordinary ability. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do notrsatisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Japan Society of New York and the Argentine 
Management Development Institute. There is no evidence to establish that the petitioner's membership in 
these organizations required "outstanding achievements" in business or that his admission to membership was 
evaluated by financial experts at the national or international level. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he "recognizes that there is no requirement of being brilliant in his field 
for being a member" of the preceding organizations. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien!$ work in the$eld for which clmsification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessav translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be printed in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To qualifL as major media, the publication should have significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner submitted four articles appearing in El Cronista Economia, On Wall Street, Securities Week, and 
Wall Street Letter. The documentation submitted by the petitioner, however, did not include the volume of 
these publications' readership. Without evidence of their significant national distribution, the petitioner has 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 5 
failed to show that the preceding publications qualify as major media. Furthermore, according to the material 
presented, the petitioner himself was clearly not the primary subject of the articles in El Cronista Economia 
and On Wall Street. In regard to the brief pieces appearing in Securities Week and Wall Street Letter, we note that 
neither of these pieces devoted more than five sentences to the petitioner. 
We find that the evidence presented by the petitioner is not adequate to show that he has been the primary subject 
of sustained national or international media attention. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specijcation for which clmsijcation is sought. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "It is not in the business field of the applicant to act as a judge of the work of 
others or to participate in any panel to that end." 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijcance in the field. 
The petitioner provided letters of support from several clients who affirm that the petitioner is an expert in 
international finance. We cite representative examples here. 
CEO, Jermyn Street Capital, Japan, states: 
I could choose among a very wide field of bright, successful and creative consultants to manage my 
personal investment portfolio because I have been so impressed with [the petitioner's] superior 
knowledge of a wide range of financial products, all emerging markets, securities trading and currency 
exchange [sic]. The diversity of his abilities in the area of international financial consulting is 
unsurpassed. 
[The petitioner's] ability and wisdom in the financial industry is well respected and is being very 
helpful in advising me on personal as well as business related issues, in order to expand my knowledge 
in emerging and currency markets. His stability and knowledge in combination with years spend [sic] 
in different part of the world financial markets have been a priceless asset to his clients and me in order 
to achieve superior management over the years. 
The petitioner, however, must demonstrate that his impact on the financial industry extends beyond his 
immediate employers and clients. 
We note that two of the letters provided in support of the petition were from individuals that only became 
aware of the petitioner's work and reviewing "documentation regarding his experience 
and professional qualifications.' Professor of Finance, Northeastern University, states that 
the basis for his opinion of the petitioner "lies in information provided by representatives of [the petitioner]." 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 6 
, Assistant Professor of Finance, Yale School of Management, states: "This letter follows my 
in-depth personal interview of [the 'petitioner]. His personal interview was supplemented by my review of 
documents submitted to me by representatives of [the petitioner]." An opinion from a finance expert who was 
not previously aware of the alien, and is simply reviewing a resume or list of accomplishments, cannot 
establish national or international acclaim. Such a letter may, in fact, simply reinforce the conclusion that the 
alien is not well-known in the field, by demonstrating that the alien's reputation did not precede the specific 
request for a recommendation. An advisory opinion is required for a non-immigrant 0-1 petition, but is not 
required in this proceeding.' 
We accept that the beneficiary possesses unique skills and knowledge in the fields of asset management, debt 
instruments, equity sales, and portfolio management. However, the letters of support do not adequately 
address specific contribtitions of major significance to the financial services industry directly attributable to 
the beneficiary. While the beneficiary has certainly enjoyed success as a respected international financial 
consultant, simply being an effective financial advisor does not constitute an original contribution of major 
significance in the financial industry. The letters of support indicate that the petitioner has provided a valued 
service to his clients and employers through successful international investing strategies, but his ability to 
significantly impact the financial industry in general has not been adequately demonstrated. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that in 2004 he brought in "over $500 million in investments" to the United 
States. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. Matter of Kutigbuk, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Subsequent developments in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish 
that hc was alrcady eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date. Regardless, the petitioner has not 
shown that investing such an amount on behalf of his clients would elevate him above almost all others in his 
field at the national or international level. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international 
acclaim. The letters of support from experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful claim. Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition is of greater 
weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. If the 
petitioner's reputation is primarily limited to his clients and employers, then he has not achieved national or 
international acclaim regardless of the expertise of his witnesses. In conclusion, we find that the 
documentation presented in regard to this criterion is not adequate to support a finding that the petitioner's 
work as a financial advisor is nationally or internationally recognized throughout the financial industry as a 
major contribution. 
I Documentation accompanying the petition indicates that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition on behalf of a given alien does not in 
any way compel Citizenship and Immigration Services to approve a subsequent visa petition under section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act on behalf of that same alien. Each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits based on the evidence 
submitted to support that petition. Furthermore, there is no statute, regulation, or binding precedent that requires the 
approval of an immigrant visa petition under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act when the alien already holds an 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa. 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of his "1991 School Year Master's Thesis." The record, however, contains 
no evidence showing that this document was published or that it is widely viewed throughout his field as 
significantly influential. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has performed in an executive or managerial role for a 
distinguished financial institution. Nor has it been adequately shown that the etitioner's position was so critical 
to attracting unusually large inflows of money from foreign investors to r hat his 
absence would have had a substantial impact as measured as a percentage of these firms' total revenue. 
On appeal, the petitioner has provided comparative data for thirteen other individuals from his office,= 
'office 761 - Grand Central." The data shows that another individual in this office (the third person on 
the list) generated more revenue in 2003 and 2004, outperforming the petitioner in both years. It has not been 
shown that the petitioner's role is any more leading or critical than the individual from Office 761 who 
outperformed him, or the thousands of othemfinancial advisors from throughout the firm for whom 
no comparative data was provided. We acknowledge that the petitioner consistently met the production goals for 
entry into his firms' President's Club or Chairman's Club (groups which included hundreds of other financial 
advisers, i.e., those in the top 800 at Morgan Stanley or those in the top five percent at Merrill Lynch), but it has 
not been shown that the percentage of revenue generated by the petitioner was so substantial as to establish that 
he  laved a "critical role" in the overall financial success of these firms in the same manner as. for exam~le. their L II 
top three revenue producers in the country or company executives at the level of dxektive 
Director of Morgan Stanley's Fixed Income Division, or higher. 
We find that the petitioner's evidence is not adequate to demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role 
for a distinguished organization, or that his involvement has earned him sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to satisfy this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the evidence presented satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
In a letter accompanying the appeal, the petitioner requests oral argument. The regulations provide, however, 
that the requesting party must adequately explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthermore, 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and 
EAC 03 090 52020 
Page 8 
will grant argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately 
addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(b). In this instance, the petitioner identified no unique factors or 
issues of law to be resolved. In fact, he set forth no specific reasons why oral argument should be held. 
Moreover, the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. Consequently, 
the request for oral argument is denied. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessarq to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. 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.