dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy .' 
DATE: FEB 23 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
·INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative:Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 20()O 
Washinb!ion. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Cit~zenship 
and Immigration 
SerYic.es 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsi,der or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided. your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the deci~ion that the motion ~eeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, . . 
"
., <r~' 
. . {. './ . '--
.. ' .~ 
~J. 0?? /_...:~. ' . 
. ~~..;.;:.; '-:.' ~ ... ~ 
\~;'.' ., . .-: .... /fo "ct, ••.. 
f • ~ ~ • 
. Perry Rhew.,.~,,,--;,;,,<" 
Chid~ AdministrativeAppeals Office 
www~uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before t,he Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an investment management company. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section, 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of e~traordinary ability in 
business. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has the 
requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for' aliens of ~xtraordinary ability by requiri'ng through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence for the alien under at least 'three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
, ' 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories 
of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that the petitioner submitted comparable evidence of 
the beneficiary's extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4)., The 
AAO acknowledges that the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, as noted by coGnsel 
on appeal. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, however, does not relieve the 
petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements required by the statute and 
regulations. Therefore, if the statute and regulations r~quire sPrcific evidence, the petitioner is 
required to submit that evidence. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R., §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). In this' matter, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top. of the, field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO ~ill uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -~ Visas shall first b~ made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens descriQed in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): , ' 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
( 
Page 3 
(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 t~e United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 H.R. 723 101
st 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204'.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through mee~ing at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 9f endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's 'membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by. recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; . 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific; scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
related contributions of major significance in the field; , 
Page 4 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in. the field, 10 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
/\ 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or' \ 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video saies. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarianv. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9
th 
Cir. 20iO). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.
1 
With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of ~vidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as theAAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
. evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her" achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U .S.c. § 1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). / 
Id. at 1119-20. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach whe're the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
, AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his O,r her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysiS dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. . th 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9 Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, .145, (3d Cir. ~004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
~I~ 'Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on June 23~ 2010, seeks to classify the be,neficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in international corporate finance and strategic business development. At 
the time of fil counsel stated: "Since 2008, [the beneficiary] has been . 
In response to the director's 
H1\""I-'''J" .. "ut opinion letter from 
OpInIOn 
stating that the beneficiary works for the petitioning company "as 
Financial Officer and Chief Risk Officer." The petitioner, has submitted documentation 
pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser, nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a May 28, 1987 Certificate of Merit from the 
_stating:' "Awarded to [the beneficiary] of 
Achievement in the High School Mathematics League." The preceding reflects a 
regional honor for high school mathematics students rather than a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
~itted a March 25, 1994 certificate from 
_Alumni Association issued iothe beneficiary in recognition of "his brilliant 
academic performance, after having obtained honorific mention in his studies at the_ 
" There is no documentary evidence showing that this award 
from the alumni as soc on 0 beneficiary's alma mater is a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in finance or business rather than an institutional honor 
limited to graduates of his schooL'. ., \, ' " 
2 The petitioner 'does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
.\ 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted documentation from 
indicating that the beneficiary was among hundreds of college re 
the newspaper in November 1994 as "The Best Students in Mexico." According to 
, documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, .se1ected thebenefidary for 
~onor "as the student with the highest grade point average among those who obtained 
their professional degree within the institution." There is no documentary evidence showing that 
this student honor is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
finance or business. Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser 
classification than the one sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such 
criteria as grade point average, is not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's 
ability to benefit the national interest. Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 
215, 219, n.6 (Comm'r 1998). Thus, academic performance is certainly not comparable to the 
awards criterion set forth at 8, C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's 
eligibility for this more exclusive classification. 
indicating that the beneficiary received an scholarshIp 
tuition, fees, and medical insurance "to carry out his Ph.D. studies at University of California, 
Berkeley" from January 1995 to June 1998. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but 
training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships do not constitute prizes or 
awards for excellence in the beneficiary's field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for graduate 
scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced business executives who have already 
completed their educational training do not seek such scholarships. Further, the petitioner did 
not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of the beneficiary's 
scholarship, such as national or widespread local coverage of his award in professional or general 
media. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that 
the beneficiary's awards be nationally or internationally recQgnized in the field of endeavor and it is 
the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary'S _scholarship equates to a 
nationall y or internationally recognized prize or award for ,excellence in finance or business. 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that.the beneficiary meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
c. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's workin the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, al1:d author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. ' 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it 'must be primarily about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify ,as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a , 
Page 7 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distfibution, 
u'nlike small local community papers.3 
The petitioner submitted excerpts from three articles in which the authors: briefly acknowledge the 
beneficiary and numerous other individuals for their "valuable comments," "advice and comments," 
and "comments and suggestions." The first article was published in' The Review, of Financial 
Studies, but there is no evidence indicating that the remaining two articles were published or their 
dates of publication. The AAd further notes that all three articles are about the authors' own work, 
and are not about the beneficiary or even his work. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." Moreover, there is' no 
circulation evidence showing that the articles wer~ in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. ' 
,,-, 
In light of above, the p~titioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
The 
, 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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. ' 
indicatiQg that in September, 2004 the beneficiary 
incoming professionals 
[The beneficiary] was invited at_ to join the leadership group ... in charge of 
developing the funds training program for recently joined traders and analysts. In his role 
of program development leader, [the beneficiary] held a series of weekly meetings aimed' 
at structuring the program, and coordinating and reviewing the work of other traders also 
involved in developing and teaching the training material. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the beneficiary has served as 
"a judge of the work of others." Serving'as a training program coordinator for one's employer 
does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. The phrase "a 
judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as 
specified at 8e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include every informal 
instance of a supervisor reviewing the work .of his, subordinates. The preceding letter from Mr. 
Stephan does not specify the nature of the beneficiary's, activities as a judge or identify the specific 
, training material prepared by others that the beneficiary reviewed. . ' 
3 Even with nationally-circula~ed ne~spapers,.consideration must be gi~en to the placement of the article. For 
example, an 'article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county: 
.\ I." 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted a letter stating: 
Between 1999 and 2003, I worked with [the beneficiary] in a few 
of his activities in my capacity as member and leader 
- '.. , ' 
* * * 
[The beneficiary's] decisive solutions to his clients' problems and innovative new 
strategies for growth' - that have proven themselves again and again - are excellent' 
evidence of his phenomenal abilities. This also demonstrates very clearly [the 
beneficiary's] ability to make clear-sighted judgments of the work of others .. 
\* * ,. 
[The beneficiary] was a member of_ final round interview team; which makes 
hiring decisions on new analysts and associates 'as well as experienced candidates. [The 
beneficiary] also played a critical role as a peer evaluator, as he conducted many reviews 
of all the consultants that worked on his teams. . 
In support of statements, the petitioner submitted documentation of an 
performance review conducted by the beneficiary while working for 
~ner s.ubmitted a le~ter' from 
_statIng: 
~ainted with [the beneficiary] through contact as an alumnus of at 
_ an international consulting firm. At an earlier stage in my car~er I was a 
partner of the firm. . . 
* *' * 
In many of his client situations [the beneficiary] was asked to provide the Board of 
Directors, CEO, or CEO with an objective/independentview of strategies proposed senior 
management (e.g., head of a particular business), or by other external advisors (e.g. 
investment banks). 
The opinion letter from states: "[The beneficiary] worked at 
• in New York as an Engagement anager in the Corporate Finance and Strategy Practlce .... 
His ideas and judgments on corporate finance and strate t into practice at major U.S. 
businesses."Simil the onion letter from states that the beneficiary's 
consulting work for his ability to judge and assess the 
business strategies and plans of experts in the fie)d." .Neither of, the preceding opinion, 
letters provides specific examples of the beneficiary's participation, either individually or on a 
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the field. The AAO is not persuaded that performing 
/ 
, " 
Page 9 
consulting services and providing business advice to clients constitutes 
the beneficiary's partiCipation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in 
the field. Unlike a judge who has authority to make final determinations and decisions on a 
particular issue, a consultant or business adviser only issues recommendations ,that a client is not 
bound to follow. ' . , 
While the beneficiary's business strategy consulting work for his firm's clients was simply a part of 
his routine duties as an Engagement Manager with and not evidence of 
his formal participation as "a judge of the work of others," the documentation indicating that that 
the beneficiary conducted employee performance reviews and participated on the team that made 
the final hiring decisions on the firm's new analysts and associates does appear to meet the plain 
language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence oj the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
related contributions of major significance in the field. ' 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, 
or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original business-related contributions "of major 
significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 'and, thus, it has 
some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3
rd 
Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v, Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2
nd 
Cir. Sep 15, 2003). To be considered a 
contribution of major significance in corporate finance and strategic business development, it can 
be expected that the beneficiary'S original work would be demonstrably influential beyond his 
employers ,and clients. In other words, providing sound business and financial advice to one's 
employers and clients may contribute positively to their profitability and success but is not 
necessarily either origi~al or a contribution to the financial field at large. 
The petitioner relies primarily on' reference letters as qualifying, evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
states: 
r 
I 
In evaluating [the beneficiary's] career history, I have 'also looked at the number and 
types of projects that [the beneficiary] has overse~n.for .his prestigious employers and 
their clients.' International corporate finance and, strategic business development projects 
are necessarily undertaken on a confidential and lOf proprietary basis. While in some 
fields, self-aggrandizement or publicity for one's employer may be a key goal; in the field 
, , 
of international corporate finance and strategic business development, the goal is for the , 
business to perform better and grow faster than the competition. Sharing the confidential 
details of how this is done would be detrimental. [The beneficiary'S] original work is 
influential in that major businesses and indeed'the Mexican government have adopted it 
and invested in it. 
Page 10 . 
_does not state that he was aware of the be~eficiary's original contributions in the field, 
prior to being asked to review the beneficiary's credentials. Regardless, _ fails to' 
provide specific examples of how the beneficiary'S work has significantly impacted the financial 
. industry or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in his field. To 
satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must 
demonstrate not only that the b~neficiary's work was novel and useful to his past employers and 
clients, but also that it was of major significance in the field. The AAO acknowle 
comments regarding the confidential nature of the beneficiary's work projects. While such 
confidentiality may be normal in the field, without evidence that the beneficiary is impacting the 
field beyond his employers or clients in at least some manner, he cannot be considered to have made 
a contribution of'major significance in the field.' . , 
I was one of [the beneficiary'S] _ at Berkeley, where he earned a Ph.D. 10 
finance several years ago. 
[, ') 
I came to know 
at Berkeley'S 
" 
''-'" 
* * * 
well in 1993, when he joined the Finance Ph.D. program 
* * 1* 
His Ph.D. dissertation was considered one of the most innovative ever produced in the 
field of market microstructure, because it provideg insights - never documented before -
on how information ... affects stock prices, and allowed researchers to test the validity of 
many theories that had been produced in this field, but had not been tested the right way. 
The plain language of the' regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires not only that the 
beneficiary'S work be original, but also "of major significance in the field." There is no evidence 
showing that the beneficiary'S Ph.D. dissertation is frequently Cited, that his findings are being 
widely applied throughout the financial industry, or, that his work otherwise constitutes an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. While the beneficiary's Ph.D. work is no 
doubt of value, it can be argued that a~y r,esearch must be shown to be original and present some 
benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the ~cholarly or business community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or graduate research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication, 
presentation, or funding, must offer new, and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It 
does not follow that every financial scholar \,vho performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge has inherently made \a c,ontribution of "major significance" to the 
field as a whole. 
states: 
... 
" 
Page 11 
This is an independen't evaluation of the professional credentials of [the beneficiary]. 
have int~rviewed [the beneficiary] and have reviewed various materiaJs proyided to me 
by his representatives. 
* * * 
I have reviewed some of [the beneficiary's] work at Berkeley; in my OpInIOn, [the 
beneficiary's] dissertation on new ways to think about investor behavior was 
revolutionary and ground breaking. 'I 
* * * 
.\ 
[The beneficiary] played a key role in important and innovative work at_one of 
the world's largest investment funds, managing and trading securitized products 
including mortgage-backed securities. Most notable to me was his work in structuring 
and launching the fund's first collateralized loan obligation, an influential and first of its 
kind investment product that was much in demand by investors. 
_ does not state that he was aware of the beneficiary's original contributions prior to 
being requested to evaluate the beneficiary's credentials. asserts that the 
beneficiary's dissertation regarding investor behavior was "revolutionary and groundbreaking," 
but he does not provides specific examples of how the beneficiary's work is being utilized by 
others in the financial industry or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Further, while 
the beneficiary's, work in structuring and launching Citadel's first collateralized loan obligation 
was important to the company's financial operations, there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
beneficiary's original work was recognized beyond the project such that his work constitutes an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. The plaiI1 language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contrib~tions be "of major significance in the field" 
rather than limited to one's employer, its business partners, or clients. 
nt, states: "I came to know 
At that time, [the 
beneficiary] was pursuing a Ph.D. in finance at the university. His 1998 thesis was and remains 
one of the most innovative I have ever supervised." _ does not provide specific 
examples of how the econometric model employed by the beneficiary in his thesis is being 
widely applied by others in the field. Further; there is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary's findings are frequently Cited by independent financial scholars or otherwise equate 
to original business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
Regarding the beneficiary's work at states: "As a 
portfolio manager at _[the beneficiary] had an unusually broad scope duties. Not only 
was he identifying investment opportunities, but iIi fact he was actually creating investment 
" 
',-
Page 12 
opportunities in business segments where they did not previously exist." does not 
provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's work' has impacted the financial industry or 
otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. As previously 
discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the 
beneficiary's original contributions be "of major significance in the fi~ld" rather than limited to 
his employer or its projects. . 
\ L 
I met [the beneficiary] in 2004, when 
~artners for collateralized loan obligation (later, known as 
~ issued in April 2005). .... [The beneficiary] was appointed by_ 
as the manager in charge of launching its first eLO vehicle .... [fhe beneficiary's] highly 
quantitative academic background, and years of experience building and developing 
~te strategies were critical for the successful closing of this transaction. _ 
__ became a critical piece in _ multi-billion private lending strategy, as it 
allowed the fund to secure $761 million in long-term, cost efficient financing for its loan 
portfolio .... 
While_discusses the beneficiary's work on project, she does 
not provide specific examples of how his work has impacted the field of finance or otherwise 
equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. . . , 
states: 
[The beneficiary] has over seven years of experience in project management and business 
plan design and execution. Throughout his career; [the beneficiary] has successfully led 
many teams in the development and rollout of various ·ects and business ventures (e.g., 
various mergers and acquisitions engagements at the launch of_ 
first collateralized loan obligation investment vehicle, and t of the 
Miami Office). 
While discusses the beneficiary's prior work experience, he does not explain how the 
beneficiary's original work has impacted the field at a level indicative of original business-related 
contributions of major significance. In support, comments, the petitioner 
submitted evidence of the beneficiary's business presentations to of 
and documentation pertaining to tpe beneficiary's, work on 
obligation project. There is nO evidence showing that beneficiary's original work on these projects 
. equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner submitted a four-
sentence news item in the April 15, 2005 issue of Loan Market Week . has 
arranged a $750 million collateralized loan obligation The 
AAO notes that the brief news item in Loan Market Week does not mention the beneficiary or his' 
involvement. Instead, the material with arranging the collateralized loan 
obligation. 
" '. 
Page 13 
M<?st recently as 'Head of Corporate Strategy and Finance at_ [the beneficiary] has 
successfully established, developed and managed what in my view is one of the best U.S. 
hedge fund operations focused on Global Emerging Markets, even though he launched 
operations during one of the most challenging environments the financial industry has ever 
faced. 
does not explain how the beneficiary's creation and management of hedge fund 
operations for_ has impacted the industry beyond his employer such that his work 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field . 
. states that her firm recruited the beneficiary for the 
, further states that the beneficiary "is an expert in the fi~ld of international corporate finance and 
strategic business development. . .. There is a scarcity of executives who match beneficiary's] 
intellectual and business acumen and his hands on experience." does not explain 
how the beneficiary's knowledge and experience constitutes an original business-related 
contribution of major significance. Significantly, unique training and experience does not even 
qualify an alien for a waiver of the alien employment certification process in the national interest 
under a lesser classification set forth at section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Assuming the beneficiary's 
skills and knowledge are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate 
skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New 
York State Dep 'f. of Transp. , 22 I&N Dec. at 221 (Comm'r 1998). It ,is not enough to be skillful 
and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. At issue is how the beneficiary has 
demonstrably impacted the field as a result of his training and experience. 
states: 
Prior to _ I worked at the of Mexico for seventeen years, being 
Managing Director in charge of implementing monetary and foreign exchange policy, my 
last position at the Bank. .. . ~ 
* * * 
I have known~ary] and his work for many years, dating back to the time he 
worked at the_ of Mexico back in 1990. 
* * * 
[The beneficiary] spent three years at the bank ,in the early 1990s, and was given 
rE!sponsibilities as a trader and investments analyst for the interest rate derivatives and 
U.S. Treasury bond portfolios. 
" 
Page 14 
-* * * 
At the of Mexico [the beneficiary] demonstrated extraordinary abilities ... 
. by analyzing and designing complex investment strategies (that enabled him to work 
head-to-head with cbunterparties at distinguished financial institutions) and leading- the 
development of the infrastructure and ~ystems that allowed the _ to execute 
this type of financial strategies. The trading strategies and infrastructure that [the· 
beneficiary] implemented and developed were· critical to the not only 
because at that time, they allowed the_ to effectively perform two specific 
fiduciary duties with regards to the Mexican Government (management of international 
reserves, and hedging of interest rate payments derived from Mexico's external debt - i.e. 
but also because they became a very important part of the trading platform 
still uses. 
provides no explanation regarding how the beneficiary's trading strategies and trading 
platform infrastructure were original or how they impacted the -financial industry at large. For 
example, does not explain how the beneficiary's original methodologies have 
significantly influenced the field of finance beyond his former employer. Once again, a 
contribution to the beneficiary's employer is not necessarily an original contribution of major 
significance to the field at large. 
Ultimately, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary developed an original model, 
methodologies, br strategies that are being applied in the field at a level consistent with original 
contributions of major significance. None of the references ide~tify any independent financial 
professionals using the beneficiary'S models, systems, or projects, other than those who work for his 
former employers and clients. For instance, it can be expected that if the claim that the beneficiary's 
Ph.D. dissertation regarding investor behavior was "revolutionary and groundbreaking" is 
accurate, the beneficiary's published findings would be frequently cited by independent financial 
scholars, his econometric model-would have been widely licensed, his model would be covered in 
the trade media, numerous examples of the beneficiary's model being used outside of the 
University of California at Berkeley would be available, or professors at multiple business schools 
would be teaching his model. The petitioner did not submit any evidence of this type or any 
comparable evidence that w()uld support the broad, poorly supported assertions in the reference 
letters. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS. may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795~796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence 
as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements. and how they became aware of the 
Page 15 
beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Even when' written by indepenclent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien [in support of an immigration' petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a business executive who has made 
original contributions of majo~ significance. Without additional, specific evidence showing that 
the beneficiary's work has beJn unusuallY'influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of icontributions ?f major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that 
the beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion.·.. . 
Evidence of the alien's luthorshiP of scholarly' articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publicatio~s or other major media. 
The petltlOner submitted the beneficiary's Ph.D. dissertation entitled "Endogeneity of Time 
between Stock Price Movements and Asymmetry of Price Transitions: An Empirical 
Assessment" and an internet brintout listing the dissertation i~ the University of California at 
Berkeley Library Catalogue. I The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's undergraduate, 
dissertation entitled "Investing for the long-term: the problem of portfolio asset allocation of 
retirement (pension) funds" aild an internet printout listing the dissertation in the _Library 
I 
Catalogue. While the bene . 's Ph.D. and undergraduate dissertations appear in his schools' 
library catalogues, there documentary evidence establishing that the preceding papers 
authored by him were "in ional or major trade publications or other major media." 
The petitioner submitted evi showing that the beneficiary cqauthored a single article published 
in the October 4, 1995 issue of The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 req y's "authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field, in professional or I • or trade publications or other major media" [emphasis added] in 
the plural. The use of the I ural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence. Section 203(b)(1)( )(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) y require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion' to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so 
as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form 
of "Ietter(s)." Thus, the AA I can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meanmg. In a different t, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret 
significance from whether singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-215' (RCL) at 12 (D .. C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 I *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30; 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
I 
regulatory requirement for" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) requires a s· e degree rather than a combination Of academic credentials). 
Therefore, as the plain langu I of the regulation at 8 ~.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence 
of the beneficiary's authorshIp of scholarly articles in more than one m 'or publication, the 
beneficiary's authorship of a ~ingle published article in Europe does not 
meet the plain language requirbments of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed iri a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Page 16 
" 
The petitioner submitted a I y 29, 2008 letter from reflecting that the 
beneficiary was offered "the I position of Head, Of Corporate Strategy and. Finance (Managing 
Dire " at In res to the director's NOlO, the petitioner submitted letters from 
! ndicati that the beneficiary works for _as the •• 
cifically states that the beneficiary has 
once June 2008. The petitioner also 
a May 2008 as evidence of the company's 
•
istin ished reputation. Ie the beneficiary appears to be performing in a leading role for 
the self-serving I of the "Investor Presentation" material prepared by _is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that I company has ~ distinguished reputation in the financial industry. 
USCIS need not rely on self motional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CY 065105 SJO (c. 
O. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 31 Fed. Appx. 680 (9th Cir: 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not 
have to rely on self-serving I 'ons on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as' 
major media). 
13, 2006 letter from the 
icating that the beneficiary would be hired as ••••••• 
Group in Miami, Florida. The letter fwther states: 
The Head of the . Group will have full budget/PNl:, accountability for the 
group's performance, will be responsible to setup and run the office, develop 
(negotiate and execute) iness opportunities for the bank'in this region (e.g., creating 
joint ventures with local mancial institutions to source new assets etc.), establish and, 
manage relationships wi clients, local business organizations and partners, cover key 
client accounts, and HU •• U>,;" a sales force initially composed by four DB employees. 
[Emphasis added.] 
The petitioner also submitted letters from' individuals such as 
J I discussing the beneficiary In 
Miami. For instance, letter indicates that the beneficiary managed the Capital 
Markets group based in Miami covering mostly Florida-based accounts, Mexican broker-dealers 
across the United States, and financial institutions in Puerto Rico, the Caribbean and Latin 
America. The petitioner's documentation also included information about stating: 
"A leader in Germany and Europe,.the bank is continuously growing in North America, Asia and 
key emer~ .. With roughly 80,000 staff from 145 nations and approximately 2000 
branches, __ offers in 72 countries a wide variety of investment, financial and related 
products and 'tioner also submitted "Fact Sheet" listing 
the including positions such as 
organizat~onal chart or other evidence from 
\ . 
( 
Page 17 
position \,JI.UJlU1".JLJl1". four salespersons in a Florida branch 
office) fell within the company's general hierarchy. While the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner adequately demonstrates ~hat has a distingui~hed reputation, there is no 
evidence showing that the beneficiary's critical to ~he Gompany, particularly in 
relation to senior executives Management. Board/Group Executive 
Committee. 
~r submitted a letter 
___ stating that the beneficiary joined as "a corporate strategist and business 
" in the Credit Group and later became a portfolio manager for 
The etitioner also submitted a March 31, 2006 letter from the 
"From December 2003 through February 
The petitioner failed to submit 
documenting where the 
in the Credit Group 
••••••••• lIIiiiiiii fell within the company's 
While the documentation submitted by the petitioner adequately demonstrates 
has a distinguished reputation; there is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary's roles were leading. or critical to the company, particularly in relation to the company's 
"Key People" identified in the Hoovers overview. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
identified himself as leader of the firm's 
letter discusses the beneficiary's work as an 
••••••••••• advising clients on projects involving corporate finance and strategy 
and business devel,opment. The petitioner also submitted documentary evidence showing that 
has earned a distinguished reputation. Additional information submitted 
by the petitioner indicates that 83 offices in 45 countries." The 
petitioner failed to submit an organizational chart or' evidence from 
documenting where the beneficiary's position as' 
fell within the firm's general hierarchy. While the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner de1ponstrates that· 
reputation, there is no evidence showing that the was 
firm, particularly in relation to the firm's multiple partners and directors. 
has a distinguished 
. or critical to the 
~etitioner submitted a letter who states that he "worked at the _ 
_ of Mexico for seventeen years" and that he was the "Managing Director in charge of 
implementing monetary and foreign exchange policy." discusses the beneficiary's 
work for the of Mexico as a trader and investments analyst for interest rate 
Page 18 
bond portfolios. The petitioner also submitted a three-sentence 
description of the of Mexico printed from the bank's" internet sit,e. The limited 
information provided by the petitioner about the of Mexico is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the bank has a distinguished reputation in the financial industry. Further, the 
petitioner failed to submit an organizational chart or other evidence from the of . ~ 
Mexico documenting where the beneficiary's position asa trader and investments analyst for 
interest rate derivatives and U.S. Treasury bond portfolios fell within the bank's general hierarchy . 
••••• 'of Mexico, 
simply by competently 
working in to cntenon meaningless. Specifically, it 
can be presumed that employers do not typically hire individuals to fill roles that serve no purpose 
for the employer; yet not every employee for a distinguished organization meets this regulatory 
criterion. In determining whether the beneficiary's role was critical the AAO looks at his 
performance in that role and how it contributed to the overall success or standing of his employer. 
The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how the beneficiary'S positions differentiated him 
from the other staff or man of lV1"Al~U. 
let alone their senior managers, partners, d 
or corporate executives. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the 
beneficiary was responsible for his previous employers' success or standing to a degree consistent 
with the meaning of "leading or critical role." \ 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a May 29, 2008 job offer letter from reflecting that the 
beneficiary was offered "the position of Head of Corporate Strategy, Operations and Finance" at 
_ The_ job offer states that the beneficiary will receive a minimum compensation 
of $500,000.00 (gross) divided as follows: (i) $20,833.00 per month; (ii) a bonus of $250,000.00 
per year. The job offer also states that the beneficia~e eligible to take part in 
discretionary bonus pool based on the profitability of _ operations and individual 
~nse to the director's NOID, .the petitioner submitted letters from _ 
____ indicating that the beneficiary works for_"as the Chief Financial 
Officer and Chief Risk Officer." _specifically states that the beneficiary has worked 
as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Risk Officer since June 2008. 
. ' I" 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary'S 2009 U.S. Indivi'dual Income Tax Return 
(Form 1040) showing that he received a total of $20,625.00 in wages, and $1,267,288.00 as 
"other gains." The record does not include a copy of the beneficiary'S IRS Form 4797, Sales of 
Business Property, showing the breakdown and specific source of the "other 
to the director's NOID, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
Page 19 
stating that the beneficiary "qualifies as a partner, and therefore is not subject to W -2 filings." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from attesting that the beneficiary "is a 
partner in and its affiliate 
The letter further explains: "Since [the beneficiary's] compensation is directly linked to 
an economic interest in both of these entities, his· distributive share of income cannot be reported 
as wages or subject to withholdings d on Form W-2." The petitioner'S response also 
included transaction records from for 2009 and· 2010 confirming 
payments from_to the beneficiary. 
As evidence that the beneficiary earns significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the 
field, the, petitioner submitted salary survey results from mysalary.com for "Top Strategic 
Planning Executives" in the Miami, Florida area showing that the top ten percent earn bonuses of 
$598,893 and above. Local salary survey ·results limited to the Miami area are not an appropriate 
basis for comparison in demonstrating the beneficiary has earned significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. [Emphasis added.] Further, the record is void of 
remuneration information for Heads· of Corporate Strategy, Operations and Finance, Chief 
Financial Officers, and Chief Risk Officers who perform similar work in the hedge fund 
industry. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994) (considering 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. 
Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Mllni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defenseI1)en). The record contains no evidence that the 
beneficiary's comp'ensation from _ constitutes significantly high remuneration in comparison 
with the most experienced and renowned executives and partners in the hedge fund industry, a well­
paid field that typically realizes large bonuses. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Sllmmary-
The AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Comparable Evidence Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's business presentations to clients 
and his structuring and launching the_first collateralized, loan obligation are comparable 
evidence of his extraordinary ability in business. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
(or the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten categories of evidence "do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
why the regulatory criteria at 8 c.r:.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are. not readily applicable to the alien's 
occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the specific objective evidence 
required at 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). , The regulatory language precludes the consideration 
of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in 
r 
-Page 20 
the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 'specified by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as indicated in this deCision, the petitioner submitted evidence 
that specifically addresses more than half of the ten categories of evidence set forth in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain 
language requirements of at least three categories of evidence at' 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Cou~ain how the documentation indicating that the beneficiary participated in 
the ____ project is "comparable" to any specific objective evidence required at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). Regardless, the beneficiary's work on _ first 
collateralized loan obligation and his business presentations to clients 
have already been addressed under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5 
regard to the beneficiary's involvement wi lateralized loan obligation, 
the AAO notes that the news item in Loan Market Week specifically states that 
arranged the collateralized loan obligation. There is nd documentary evidence showing that the 
beneficiary's work on this project garnered him national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the field. With regard to the beneficiary's business presentations to 
corporate clients, there is D-O evidence demonstrating that such presenta were unusu 
business consulting industry or that the beneficiary's presentations garnered him or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Regarding the expert opinion letters submitted by the petitioner, the AAO notes that they have 
already been considered under the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and 
(viii). Further, counsel does not explain how the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are 
"comparable" to the specific objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). While 
reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning 
weight to certain evidence, such letters are not comparable to extensive evidence of the alien's 
achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of 
required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i). The 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b )(l)(A)(i) o'f the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide 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 docurpentation than that 
required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of 
achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from 
references selected by the petitioner or the beneficiary. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to' the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that th~ alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
Page 21 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) - (v), (vi), (viii), and (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for . the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), this decision has already addressed why the petitioner's evidence does not rise 
to the level of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. The AAO notes thatthe beneficiary's Certificate of Merit from the Colorado Mathematics 
League, his award from the IT AM Alumni Association honoring his academic performance, his 
"Best Students in Mexico" honor, and his academic scholarship from CONACYT "to carry out 
his Ph.D. studies at University of California, Berkeley" were limited to students. Thus, they 
cannot establish that he is one of the very few at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 953, 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow that 
the beneficiary's receipt of student awards and scholarships which exclude veteran business 
executives in the field from consideration should necessarily qualify for approval of an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa petition. While the AAO acknowledges 
that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, the AAO notes that in Matter of Racine, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not 
a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; 
but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Crimson v. INS, 
No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and 
circuit, the court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable .. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2) that· this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of 
individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Moreover, there is no 
evidence showing that the beneficiary has received any nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards since the 1990s. The statute and regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary's national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The . . 
documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in finance or business as of the 
June 23, 2010 filing date of the petition. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.f.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
the articles in which the authors briefly acknowI-edge the beneficiary and numerous other 
individuals were not about the beneficiary and there is no evidence that the articles were 
Page 22 
published in major trade publications or other major media: The petitioner's evidence is not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of exp~rtise indicating that 
the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), 
the AAO cannot conclude that performing job responsibilities assigned by one's immediate 
employer is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the beneficiary 
created a "Credit Training Module" for served as a trainin 
coordinator at and performed business strategy consulting work for 
_ clients. The beneficiary's performance of such duties for his employers does not 
constitute his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in 
the field. The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that the beneficiary conducted 
HIUI""'''' reviews and participated on a team that made the final hiring decisions on 
new analysts and associates. While the latter evidence may meet the 
plam regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the nature of the beneficiary's 
judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of his 
recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Being 
assigned to review subordinates or job candidates for one's immediate employer is not evidence 
of "national or international acclaim" in the field. The petitioner failed to submit evidence 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's internal performance reviews and hiring decisions for 
garnered recognition beyond his firm or was otherwise indicative of a 
level ,of expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. Cf, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 953, 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 
60899' (USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). The petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary'S internal review of job applicants and subordinates at is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
field. I 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major 
significance" in the field. Demonstrating that the beneficiary'S work was "original" in that it did not 
merely duplicate prior work is not useful in setting the beneficiary apart through a "career of 
acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an 
alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, 
education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " In this case, the 
record does' not contain sufficient evidence that the beneficiary's, original work had major 
significance in the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally 
acclaimed as extraordinary. i Aside from the petitioner's failure to submit evidence demonstrating 
that the beneficiary has made original business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field, the AAO notes that the petitioner's claim is' based primarily on reference letters. While 
such letters can provide important details about the beneficiary's work, they cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have achieved "sustained national or international acclaim" ,necessitates evidence ot recognition 
, \ 
Page 23 
beyond one's professional' contacts. See section ·203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 V.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted by the petitioner 
for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(b)(3)(v) is not indicative oi.or consistent with 
sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that the ben~fiCiary is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
there is no documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary's Ph.D. and undergraduate 
dissertations were "in professional or major trade publications or other major media." Moreover, 
the citation history of the beneficiary's scholarly articles is a relevant consideration as to whether 
the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. 
See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, there is no citation evidence indicating 
that independent financial scholars have frequently cited the beneficiary's work. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the beneficiary's articles 
have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. Further, there is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary has published any scholarly articles subsequent to 1995. The statute and regulations 
require the petitioner to demonstrate that the beneficiary's national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, 8 V.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R.· 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the category of evidence. at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in finance 
or business as of the June 23, 2010 filing date of the petition. 
. I 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. The documentation submitted by the petitioner for the category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R: § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a 
level of expertise indicating that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), 
there is no evidence demonstrating that beneficiary'S ·remuneration is "significantl), high" in 
relation to other Heads of Corporate Strategy, Operations and Finance; Chief Financial Officers; 
and Chief Risk Officers who perform similar work in the hedge fund industry, or that his level of 
\ . 
compensation places him among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field. The petitioner must submit evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary'S remuneration 
places him at the very top of the field rather than sfmpl y in the top half of his field in the Miami 
region. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary'S salary 
and bonus are indicative of or consistent with -national or ,international acclaim in the typically well _ 
compensated hedge fund industry. 
In this matter, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's achievements at the time of 
filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as an executive in the 
financial industry, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
! 
Page 24 ' 
The submitted evidence is not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
. . .~.' 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The conclusion the AAO 
reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence 
in the aggregate does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). While the petitioner need not 
demonstrate that there is no, one more accomplished than the beneficiary for him to qualify for 
the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the level 
the beneficiary has attained. r " 
D. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The AAO notes that the alien is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition 
for an alien of extraordinary. This prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an 
immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. Each case must be 
decided on a case-by-case basis upon review of the evidence of record. It must be noted that many 
1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, 
e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. or 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 
1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; seealso Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the alien's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's auth~rity over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and, a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a 
nonimmigraf,lt petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 f.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). ' 
III. Conclusion 
, .' 
Review of the record does not establ~sh that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is neit persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set ~im significantly above. almost all others in his field at a national 
I 
f 
Page 25 
or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
, " 
, " /1 ., 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify ,all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
" .