dismissed EB-1A Case: Economics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U S C~tlzensh~p and Immlgratlon Services 
Office ofAdm~nrstratzve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
J ,*..-+-t i*ri~aSy U. S. Citizenship 
k,;.j'-,si3-: 0, q,,~ r and Immigration 
PrnLIC cop"!( 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
103.5 for the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in business and education. The director determined the petitioner 
had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if - 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The 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 56 
Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, 
however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 30, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an economist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an 
Page 3 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of 
such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an 
alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner requests oral argument, asserting: 
The reason why an oral argument is necessary is that my specialties in economics 
and finance are so sophisticated that my argument cannot be adequately addressed 
in writing. In order to make my point clear enough, I have to give a lecture to the 
AAO using state-of-art multimedia technology (such as laptop, data projector, 
Powerpoint presentation, and tablet [sic] PC, etc.) just like what I usually do when 
I attend international conferences or teach college courses. 
USCIS has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant 
argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately 
addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(b). In this instance, the petitioner alleges that her 
field of endeavor is so complicated that she must lecture the AAO using multimedia technology. 
The petitioner alleges that a lecture involving multimedia is necessary to present her case; 
however, she has identified no unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. Moreover, she has 
not indicated how or why the written record of proceedings does not fully represent the facts and 
issues in this matter. Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that, she claims, meets several of the following criteria. A 
petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting 
evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability7' 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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In his October 18, 2006 letter accompanying the petition, counsel stated that the petitioner won 
the First Prize of Fourth National "Challenge Cup" Extracurricular Science and Technology 
Competition for College Students, "the highest prize in China for students' research." In another 
letter, also dated October 18, 2006, counsel stated that the petitioner's paper, "'On Implementing 
Agricultural Price Support Policies in Guangdong' won the Third prize of Fourth National 
'Challenge Cup' extracurricular science and technology competition for college students in 1994, 
China." The petitioner submitted a copy of what purports to be a January 5, 1996 certification of 
the award, which indicated that her paper was written while she was a graduate student in 1993. 
However, the translation accompanying the document does not identify the translator, and the 
translator does not certify that he or she is competent to translate from Chinese into English as 
required by C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be 
accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
In a May 31, 2006 letter,, the George J. Stigler Distinguished Service 
Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, stated that 
the petitioner won the Holland "Shell Cup" Best Paper Prize in 1995. The petitioner submitted 
no documentation corroborating her receipt of this award. Additionally, the petitioner submitted 
no documentation to establish that either of these awards is nationally or internationally 
recognized as an award of excellence in her field of endeavor. 
In his request for evidence (RFE) dated November 26, 2007, the director advised the petitioner 
that the record indicates that she won the "Shell Cup" award but did not establish that the award 
was nationally or internationally recognized. The director did not address any of the other awards 
allegedly won by the petitioner. In his January 2, 2008 letter accompanying the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, counsel reiterated that the petitioner had won the First Prize of Fourth 
National "Challenge Cup" Extracurricular Science and Technology Competition for College 
Students. Counsel asserted that "[tlhis prize is internationally recognized and academically 
significant since it was sponsored by Shell Oil Corporation." 
We note that the Shell Cup award and the Challenge Cup appear to be two different awards. 
Nothing in the record supports counsel's assertions that the Challenge Cup was sponsored by the 
Shell Oil Corporation or that the prize is "internationally recognized and academically 
significant." Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
In denying the petition, the director stated that the "Challenge Cup" "appears to be limited to 
college students and so it cannot be considered an award reflective of national acclaim." The 
director's decision did not address any of the other awards allegedly won by the petitioner. On 
appeal, the petitioner states that the director failed to "even mention the Holland 'Shell Cup' Best 
Paper Prize"' that she won. The petitioner asserts that the paper was accepted for presentation at 
an international conference and that two newspapers published the paper. 
Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted no documentation to corroborate that either the Challenge 
Cup or the Shell Cup are nationally or internationally recognized as awards or prizes for 
excellence in her field of endeavor. As noted by the director, the First Prize of Fourth National 
"Challenge Cup" Extracurricular Science and Technology Competition for College Students, by 
its very title is limited to college students. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training 
for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships and student awards cannot be 
considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Competition for student awards 
is limited to other students and excludes experienced experts in the field. Thus, student awards 
cannot establish that a petitioner is one of the very few at the top of her field. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she is a member of the American 
Economic Association (AEA) and the American Finance Association (AMF). The petitioner, 
however, submitted no documentation regarding the membership requirements for either of the 
organizations. 
In denying the petition, the director concluded that, as the AMF has over 8,000 members, 
"membership does not appear to be exclusive." On appeal, the petitioner takes issue with this 
statement, asserting that members of the organization are "among the top .00012% of the global 
population." The director's determination as to whether membership of the AMF meets this 
criterion cannot be based solely on the size of the organization. Nonetheless, the petitioner failed 
to provide any evidence that either the AMF or the AEA requires outstanding achievements of 
their members. 
The petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
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 classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner did not claim and submitted no documentation that she meets this criterion. 
Page 6 
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 speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an August 29, 2003 letter from the Graduate School of 
Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University indicating that the petitioner was editor of economics of the 
Journal of The Graduates (Social Sciences edition) from August 1993 to June 1996, while she 
pursued her master's degree. In his letter accompanying the petition, counsel asserted that the 
petitioner had been invited to be a panel reviewer and editor of the journal and that: 
All panel reviewers of this journal are distinguished financial experts who are 
widely acclaimed and respected in the finance field for their expertise and acumen 
in the field. . . . This honor itself is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that 
[the petitioner] has become a judge of the works of others in the [same] or allied 
field of specialization. 
Nothing in the record supports counsel's assertions about the qualifications and expertise of 
those selected as a reviewer for the journal. Counsel's unsupported assertions are not evidence. 
See id. The letter from Zhongshan University stated the Journal of The Graduates is an academic 
journal "for master degree and Ph.D. degree graduate students to publish their research and 
papers." The petitioner's appointment as editor of a student journal while she herself was a 
student is not indicative of national or international acclaim in her field. 
In res onse to the RFE the petitioner submitted a copy of an e-mail dated December 21, 2007 
from of the Department of Economics at the University of Wanvick, stating 
that the petitioner had been a reviewer for "the journal." However, did not specify 
the journal, the time frame or any specific review that the petitioner had performed. The 
petitioner provided a copy of a review that she performed for the journal Applied Financial 
Economics in August 2006. She also submitted copies of four invitations to review manuscripts 
for the journals Applied Economics and Applied Financial Economics. The petitioner also 
provided a copy of one of the reviews that she performed in response to the invitations. 
However, these invitations were extended to the petitioner, and the reviews performed, after the 
filing date of the petition on October 30,2006; therefore they are not evidence of this criterion. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
The evidence indicates that the petitioner served as editor of a graduate student journal in the 
early to mid-nineties. The evidence does not indicate that she performed any other review until 
10 years later and less than three months prior to the filing of the visa petition. One review in ten 
years is not consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
, Page 7 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner makes no claim to any specific contribution of major significance to the field of 
economics or education. She submits several letters from references who state that she is an 
outstanding young economist whose work will have a great impact on the financial markets. 
However, none indicate any contribution of major significance made by the petitioner. These 
references include the following: 
m, who stated that the petitioner's "paper on the cooperation and union of finance 
between Hong Kong and Shenzhen," published in 1995, in which she "proposed a theory of the 
financial deepening in economic development, i.e., mature development of finance can stimulate 
the development of economy," was endorsed by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz in 
1998. also stated that: 
[The petitioner] laid out conditions that, if successfully implemented, would 
promote extremely rapid growth of the economy of the People's Republic of 
China. These included the unionization of the Hong Kong dollar and the Yuan 
and integration of the financial markets of Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Finally, 
based on reviewing the development model of the financial system of the 
European Union and comparing it with the financial infrastructure of Hong Kong 
and Shenzhen, she set forth a plan of action to implement these conditions. She 
demonstrated remarkable foresight in the paper because the conditions that she 
specified are precisely the ones that led to China's rapid growth in the decade 
afler she completed her paper. 
While 
 indicated that the petitioner was foresighted, he did not state that her ideas 
were specifically endorsed or accepted by the financial or business community, impacted 
China's economic growth, or otherwise made a major contribution to her field. also 
stated that the petitioner investigated "whether the exchange rate time series system consisting of 
the Japanese yen and South Korean won is cointegrated," and that: 
The economic implication of this result is that the exchange rate systems of 
Japanese yen and South Korean won are, in the long run, in equilibrium. Such 
knowledge is crucial to potential investors in the two countries. This is the first 
empirical study of its kind that I have encountered in the international capital 
management field. [The petitioner's] research also extends the methodology 
created by Nobel laureate economist Robert Engle, namely, his two-step approach 
for modeling cointegrated processes. Moreover, it is the first application of 
cointegrating econometric analysis to Asian exchange rates. Her study can help 
investors explore arbitrage opportunity in foreign exchange markets. In my view, 
her results offer opportunities for American investors to make large gains in Asian 
foreign exchange markets. 
Page 8 
does not state and provides no evidence that the petitioner's research, while 
theoretically "crucial" to "potential investors," has been relied upon to such an extent that it can 
be said that her research was a major contribution to her field of endeavor. 
. Dr. is a professor of finance at the City University of New York (CUNY) 
Graduate Center and stated that the petitioner completed her dissertation under his supervision. 
He further stated that he has "no doubt several papers will be published from this work, and I 
also think some of these papers will be widely cited." Of her previous research on the Yuan, Dr. 
stated: 
Her research conclusion is that the unified exchange rate of yuan is very helpful 
for removing barriers to Chinese foreign trade and to stimulate foreign capital 
investment in China, that has played a critical role in the development of the 
current Chinese economy. This research can be used by international investors to 
navigate the modem global market. 
conclusions are echoed, word for word, by, Chair Professor of 
Scientific Computing at Centre for Scientific Computing, Warwick University. As with Dr. 
however, neither nor indicate that the financial and economic 
markets actually utilized the petitioner's research or that her work was instrumental in the 
development of the Chinese economy, or otherwise made a major contribution to her field. 
Dr. is the Distin uished Professor of Economics in the Ph.D. 
Program in Economics at the CUNY. 
 stated: 
[The petitioner's dissertation] addresses a challenging real world problem: how to 
accurately interpret the complex nonlinear dynamic behavior of financial time 
series such as exchange rate and stock price. She has made history by proposing a 
brand new method of forecasting bond prices and yields. Previous research has 
concluded that many of these series cannot be modeled as linear Gaussian 
processes because they exhibit asymmetry, limit cycles, and jumps. She 
introduced a threshold autoregressive (TAR) estimation method for American 
treasury notes and Japanese government bonds. The significance of TAR models 
is that they do not require specific assumptions regarding the distribution and 
functional form of the series under investigation. This makes the estimation 
procedure significantly more general and more accurate than those employed by 
other nonlinear models. 
In my view she makes extremely important theoretical and empirical 
contributions to the literature in her dissertation. Specifically, [the petitioner] has 
created nonlinear financial time series analysis measures based on estimated 
stochastic discount factors. The new approach makes it possible to evaluate 
Page 9 
nonlinear patterns of returns resulting from active bond portfolio management and 
derivatives trading. . . . [The petitioner's] models and theories will make huge 
contribution to American investors and national welfare. 
however, does not state that the petitioner's research and findings, while 
significant, have already made a major contribution to her field of endeavor. Rather, he only 
speculates as to the impact it would have on "American investors and national welfare." A visa 
petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or aAer the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Deputy Superintendent, State of New York Banking Department. - 
stated that the petitioner's work as a risk management specialist with the state is "of crucial 
importance to the U.S. capital markets and banking industry," and that: 
[Her] research is a significant contribution to the field of risk management for 
banks and financial institutions, especially for large and complex banks that 
operate their business internationally. . . . [The petitioner's] pioneering work 
equips the U.S. banks and financial institutions with irreplaceable edge to acquire 
and maintain their leadership in today's highly competitive markets. 
further stated that the 
 etitioner's "contribution in this field and to the U.S. 
economy is hard to match." dh did not, however, specify any business that had 
benefited from the petitioner's work or how it benefited. Additionally, while he stated that the 
petitioner's work was "a significant contribution," he did not state that her work was a major 
contribution to the field of economics and finance. 
Senior Bank Examiner with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Dr. 
the petitioner's "published research entitled Threshold Autoregressive 
Modeling of Pond Series - Japanese Case . . . is absolutely a breakthrou 
 in the data mining and 
modeling field based on my over 20 years of experience in this field." 
 described 
the petitioner's expertise and experience as extraordinary, and stated that her work "is crucially 
important to the safet and soundness of banking institutions and to the stability of the country's 
financial system.' Chairman of the Chinese Association for Science and Business, 
also stated that the petitioner's "work plays a very important role in govenunent's debt 
measurement and management," and that her "research has a huge positive impact on America's 
government debt management strategies, especially now when the U.S. government has an 
unparalleled debt deficit to manage." However, neither nor specify how the 
petitioner's work has actually contributed to her field by, for example, being used by or 
expanded upon by other economists or financial institutions. 
the petitioner's "work in both teaching and research hold much promise (and utility)." As 
previously discussed, a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
. Page 10 
eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The above letters are all from the petitioner's instructors or immediate circle of colleagues. Such 
letters cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's acclaim beyond her immediate circle of 
colleagues. The ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) reflect the statutory demand for 
"extensive documentation" in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Opinions from witnesses whom 
the petitioner has selected do not represent extensive documentation. Independent evidence that 
already existed prior to the preparation of the visa petition package carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. Additionally, while the 
petitioner's references laud her expertise, none specified any contribution of major significance 
by the petitioner to her field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 10 research papers, 9 letters of recommendation, and 
various invitations to participate in research conferences, all indicate that she has made 
"worldwide contributions of major significance in the field." As discussed above, however, none 
of the petitioner's references indicate that she made a contribution of major significance to her 
field. Further, they discuss the petitioner's major research papers and none indicate that, apart 
from being innovative, the petitioner's work actually made specific contributions of major 
significance to the field. The petitioner's research papers and conference participation are 
discussed in more detail below. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in theJield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted copies of what appear to be six articles written in 
Chinese accompanied by English abstracts of those articles. The petitioner does not provide full 
translations of the articles; therefore the documentation does not comply with the terms of 8 
C.F.R. @ 103.2(b)(3), which provides: 
Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to [USCIS] 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
The petitioner initially submitted documentation indicating that three abstracts of her papers had 
been accepted for presentation at international conferences but she submitted no documentation 
that her articles had been published. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of one of her articles that was 
purportedly published in Investment Management and Financial Innovations in 2006; a copy of 
an article that was purportedly published in the February 1994 issue of the Journal of the 
Graduates of Zhongshan University (Social Studies); and a copy of an article published in March 
1994 in the same journal. The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that either of 
the journals is a professional or major trade publication or a form of major media. Copies of 
three papers or abstracts indicate that they were presented at two different forums. Annotations at 
the end of the documents indicate that they were published in 1994 and 1995; however, the 
petitioner did not submit copies of these publications and submitted no documentation to verify 
that these articles appeared in the stated publications. 
Eligibility for this visa classification is established through "extensive documentation" of 
"sustained acclaim." Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). With the 
exception of the article published in 2006, which, according to the credits, is part of the 
petitioner's dissertation, all of the other documentation of the petitioner's scholarly articles is for 
her work in 1994 and 1995. The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that she 
published any work from 1995 to 2006. This lack of published work for a period of 10 years is 
not evidence of the sustained acclaim required for this petition. 
Additionally, although the petitioner's references state that her research was of importance to the 
financial markets, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the business or 
financial community or other economists relied upon her work. While the petitioner and Dr. 
stated that the petitioner's work was endorsed by Nobel laureate economist Joseph 
Stiglitz, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that Stiglitz accorded any specific 
recognition to her work. The petitioner cannot meet her burden of proof without documentary 
evidence to support her claim. See id. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by 
independent research teams or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant 
impact in her field. On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of a page from the Social Science 
Research Network (SSRN) website, which was accessed on May 28, 2008, indicating that eight 
of her papers appear on the site and have been viewed a total of 79 times. None had been 
downloaded. Evidence that others have viewed the petitioner's articles does not, without more, 
indicate that others relied upon her work or that her work otherwise had a significant impact on 
the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
The petitioner also labeled the printout as "New Citations'' to her papers. To the extent that other 
individuals viewed her papers after this petition was filed, such evidence cannot be considered. 
The petitioner must establish her eligibility at the time of filing. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that she performed a leading or critical role for 
an organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner alleges that her role as a senior risk management specialist "is critically 
important to [the] New York Banking Department" because she is only one of two 
specialists in the department. The petitioner submits a December 27, 2007 letter fiom 
a Supervising Risk Management S ecialist for the State of New York's Banking 
Department's Capital Markets team. 
 states that the petitioner's "knowledge of 
statistical modeling techniques has been a welcomed addition to our Capital Markets team," and 
that as one of two doctoral members on staff, her "knowledge is in constant demand throughout 
our team." letter does not indicate that the petitioner's role, while valuable, is of a 
leading or critical nature. Additionally, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish 
that the New York Banking Department or the Capital Markets team is an organization with a 
distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner also asserts that her role as an adjunct professor at Queens College is of a critical 
nature because she has been teaching the courses required for every economics or business 
major. She asserts that "[wlithout her teaching contribution, no student who major[s] in 
economics, accounting, finance, international business or actuarial could graduate with a 
bachelodmaster degree." 
The petitioner submits an undated letter from 
 an administrative assistant with 
the Department of Economics at Queens College. 
 states that the petitioner "has 
taught some of the courses re uired for both the Economics and BBA (Bachelor of Business 
Administration) majors." 4 letter does not indicate that the petitioner taught all of the 
courses required for graduation or that she was the only one who taught the courses. Further, the 
petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the Department of Economics at Queens 
College is an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a March 15, 2006 letter fiom the Banking Department of the 
State of New York confirming her permanent appointment to the position of senior risk 
management specialist at a salary of $64,112 plus an annual "downstate" adjustment of $1,302. 
A December 10, 2007 letter indicated that the petitioner had been employed by the New York 
State Banking Department since February 26, 2007 and that her salary in the position of senior 
risk management specialist was $64,912 plus a $1,302 location pay. A December 17, 2007 letter 
Page 13 
from the Office of Human Resources at Queens College verified that the petitioner was 
employed as an assistant professor in the Economics Department at a salary of $66.55 per hour. 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that these salaries are high relative to 
others in her field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
indicating that the mean salary for compliance officers was $50,890. The information provided, 
however, does not reflect the salary of half of those employed in the compliance field that make 
more than the mean $50,890. The petitioner has not shown that, because her salary is 30% higher 
than the mean salary for the group, she is among the top earners in her field. Additionally, the 
petitioner indicates that, according to the BLS statistics, her salary as an assistant professor is 
205% higher than the mean salary for those in education. We note first that the petitioner 
compares her salary to those in "education, training and library occupations" as opposed to 
"business teachers, post~econdary,'~ which the BLS statistics show earn a mean salary of 
$70,220. Second, as discussed above, the petitioner's evidence fails to address the salary of those 
in the education field who earn more than the median salary. Third, the petitioner provided no 
documentation of her salary as an assistant professor prior to the filing date of the petition. The 
petitioner must show that she commanded a high salary at the time the petition was filed. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as 
an economist or educator 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 the very top of her field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.