dismissed EB-1A Case: Corporate Banking

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
8, 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CEmER Date: 2 5 2887 
EAC 04 033 50279 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
J~U~AD€&~~LL 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
&Administrative I Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) rejected a subsequent appeal in error. The matter is now 
before the AAO on a motion to reconsider. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the AAO will 
be withdrawn, and the appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in business.' The director determined the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the evidence submitted with the petition "satisfies the criteria for qualification as 
an Alien of Extraordinary Ability as enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) hority 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 whch has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
The petitioner was initially represented by attorney Ann E. La Rue. In this decision, the term "previous counsel" shall refer 
to An E. La Rue. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 17, 2003, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in "corporate banking marketing and cross-selling." At the time of filing, the beneficiary was 
employed as a "Marketing and Cross-Selling Manager in the Corporate Banking North America unit of BNP 
Paribas, holding the rank of Vice President." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204,5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of a major internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the 
sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted 
evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding that the beneficiary fails to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary holds a Master of Science degree in Finance from 
the University of Paris IV Dauphine (1995) and a Master of Business Administration degree in Finance and 
Investment from Baruch College, City University of New York (1997). In an "Index of Exhibits" accompanying 
the petition, previous counsel referred to these degrees as L'prizes." University study is not a field of endeavor, 
but rather training for future employment in a field of endeavor. Earning an advanced degree reflects a 
student's fulfillment of academic coursework requirements at a particular university, but it does not constitute 
receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in one's field of endeavor. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding that the beneficiary fails to meet this criterion. 
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. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the 
New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of 
significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
2 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
The petitioner submitted a Fall 2001 issue of GOAL North America, a BNP Paribas informational newsletter, 
which includes the beneficiary's photograph on page 3 and a proposed timeline reflecting her involvement with 
implementing a cross-selling methodology at various locations in North America. The petitioner also submitted a 
Summer 2003 issue of In Brief The Newsletter for BNP Paribas in North America. This newsletter, however, 
does not mention the beneficiary's name. Neither of these BNP Paribas internal newsletters qualifies as 
"professional or major trade publications or other major media." Further, the author of the material was not 
identified as required by this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles published in the Wall Street Journal, The Lawyer, Business Week, 
The Financial Times, The Times (London), and Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News. These articles, which 
include no mention of the beneficiary's name, are about the BNP and Banque Paribas merger rather than the 
beneficiary her~elf.~ The plain language of this criterion, however, requires "published materials about the 
alien." If the beneficiary is not the primary subject of the material, then it fails to demonstrate her individual 
acclaim at the national or internationaI level. Without evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary has been the 
primary subject of major media attention, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the 
work of accomplished professionals as a member on a national panel of independent experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating one's coworkers or subordinates. 
Previous counsel argued that the beneficiary meets this criterion through performing the role of Secretary of BNP 
Paribas' Asset Liability Management Committee, serving as a member of BNP Paribas' North American 
Integration Executive Committee, providing advice and analysis on North American Operations, evaluating and 
restructuring the bank's business units, updating the bank's infrastructure to ensure compliance with Federal 
Reserve Bank and National Association of Securities Dealers mandates, monitoring the performance of the 
salesforce in the realization of cross-selling opportunities, improving client service methodology and procedures, 
ensuring that corporate banlung clients are visited by the salesforce regularly and that visit reports are generated, 
malung sure that follow-up actions are implemented in good time, makmg sure data is properly entered into the 
client service database, ensuring the validation and execution of cross-selling opportunities, and other general 
3 
 The record includes no contemporaneous evidence showing that the petitioner was a key executive primarily 
responsible for this merger (such as 
E 
ho, unlike the beneficiary, is actually mentioned in the articles). 
.- 
Page 5 
managerial responsibilities inherent to her position as Marketing and Cross-Selling Manager in the Corporate 
Banking North America unit of BNP Paribas. 
In addressing counsel's argument, the director's decision stated: "The record . . . contains no evidence that 
the beneficiary has participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, beyond that required by her 
current employment." On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding. 
We concur with the director's finding that the beneficiary activities are not tantamount to judgng the work of 
others in one's field for purposes of this criterion. The preceding duties are limited in scope to the beneficiary's 
immediate employer and do not involve judgng others in the field. We do not find that duties inherent to one's 
job duties are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. The record 
includes no evidence showing the names of the individuals evaluated by the beneficiary or contemporaneous 
documentation of her specific assessments. Further, there is no indication that the beneficiary, rather than her 
corporate superiors, held final authority over her decisions. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted six letters of reference discussing the beneficiary's work at BNP Paribas, but there is 
no evidence showing that the work attributable to her has had a substantial national or international impact 
beyond her immediate employer such that it can be considered a contribution of "major significance in the 
field." While the beneficiary is admired within her company for adeptly handling her job responsibilities, the 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not adequate to demonstrate that the beneficiary is recognized 
throughout the greater field for original contributions of major significance in the corporate banlung field. 
The record does not indicate the extent of the beneficiary's influence on others in the corporate banking field, 
nor does it show that this field has somehow changed as a result of her work. 
The director's decision noted that the record included copies of BNP Paribas' "corporate analyses, strategy 
papers, business models, and financial reports." The director's decision further stated: "These documents, 
however, do not bear the name of the beneficiary as author anywhere in the exhibit. Instead, they appear to 
be reflective of the work of a team of management analysts who have compiled reports for the employer as a 
normal course of business." The director's decision also stated that "the record does not establish that the 
beneficiary's accomplishments have been . . . recognized as having advanced the field to a far greater degree 
than the accomplishments of others involved in similar pursuits." On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge 
the director's findings. 
With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals who have worked with the beneficiary in New 
York, the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand 
evidence that the beneficiary has earned sustained acclaim for her contributions outside of those who are close 
to her. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim," however, 
necessitates evidence of recognition beyond direct acquaintances of the beneficiary. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of Iess weight than 
Page 6 
preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of a business executive who 
has sustained national or international acclaim. The benefit sought in the present matter is not the type for 
which documentation is typically unavailable and the statute specifically requires "extensive documentation" to 
establish eligibility. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
beneficiary's work has been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding that the beneficiary fails to meet ths criterion. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of BNP Paribas' business reports, action plans, policies and procedures, 
and budget documents. In addressing this evidence, the director's decision noted that these documents had 
not been identified as the work of the beneficiary and that, even if they were attributable to the beneficiary, 
the documents were "internal work products . . . created as part of her duties for her employer." The plain 
language of this criterion requires the beneficiary's work to appear "in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." The petitioner's evidence does not meet this requirement. Further, we do 
not find that these internal business documents constitute "scholarly articles." Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Previous counsel argued that the beneficiary's presentations to coworkers, various internal committees, and 
clients meet this criterion. The director, however, found that this criterion "does not appear to be applicable in 
this instance." On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge this finding. 
In this case, the beneficiary's field is not in the arts. The plain language of this criterion indicates that it applies 
to visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than to business executives such as the beneficiary. 
The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every 
occupation. Given that the beneficiary is an executive in the corporate banking field, she would not satisfy 
this criterion simply by demonstrating that she made business presentations to her coworkers, internal 
committees, and clients. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The record adequately establishes that BNP Paribas is an organization with a distinguished reputation. In order 
to establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for BNP Paribas, the petitioner must 
distinguish the beneficiary from the numerous other executives employed by this organization. Otherwise, the 
phrase "leading or critical role" is meaningless. 
Page 7 
On page 2, the director's decision stated: 
The record contains a copy of material about BNP Paribas, the beneficiary's employer, with several 
references to their activities in the United States. The company is said to employ 2000 people [in North 
America]. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the beneficiary is not identified as one of the listed 
"Key Executives" or as a member of the executive committee. The beneficiary is not specifically named 
in any portion of Exhibit 8 [Report entitled "BNP Paribas in the U.S."], nor is she named in the 2002 
annual report or the 2002 annual results for BNP Paribas (exhibit 13). 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding that the beneficiary fails to meet this criterion. 
According to the documentation submitted by the petitioner, BNP Paribas employs numerous Vice Presidents. 
There is no indication that the beneficiary's role BNP Paribas is more important than that of the numerous other 
executives employed b this or anization, including "Key Executives" such as 
 ead of the North 
American Territory, *Read of Corporate Bankmg, or 
Officer. The record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary was responsible for the organization's success or 
standing to a degree consistent with sustained national or international acclaim or with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role." Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signifzcantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding that the beneficiary fails to meet this criterion. 
The record includes no supporting evidence (such as payroll records or income tax forms) showing the 
beneficiary's actual earnings for any specific period of time. Further, the plain language of this criterion 
requires the petitioner to submit evidence establishing that the beneficiary has earned a high salary "in 
relation to others in the field." The petitioner, however, offers no basis for comparison showing that the 
beneficiary's compensation was significantly htgh in relation to others in her field. There is no evidence that the 
beneficiary earns a level of compensation placing her among the highest paid executives in the corporate banlung 
field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets ths criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria 
that must be satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Prior counsel argued that much of the preceding evidence should be evaluated pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4). This regulation allows for the submission of "comparable evidence," but only if the 
ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference 
in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at 
Page 8 
the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements set her significantly 
above almost all others in her field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established the beneficiary's eligbility 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. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.