dismissed EB-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19956575 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 3, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a financial specialist , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 whos e 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 
the United States. 
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). The implementing regulat ion 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3) sets forth arrm lti-partanalysis. First, a petitioner can demonstraterecognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one -time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rifai v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner works at I as a senior manager. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
demonstrated that he has received a major, internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner only fulfilled one criterion, leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii) . On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for six 
additional criteria, including through the submission of comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4 ). After reviewing all of the presented evidence, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on 
being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in 
the field for which classification is sought. 1 The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based 
on his participation on industry roundtables. The record reflects that the Petitioner provided evidence 
showing his service on various round tables, such as the I I Round table in 2019. In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I I who indicated that the Petitioner "has also 
seen him be recruited to sit on various industry round tables," and a letter from I lwho stated 
that "[i]nvitation to such industry leading roundtables is by invitation only and is reserved for top 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov /policymanuaI/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an 
example ofadmission to membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associatethatrequires individuals 
to be nominated by an academy member , and membership is ultimately granted based uponrecognition of the individual's 
distinguished achievements in original research). 
2 
executives and renowned experts in the field of and "[t]he top 20 representatives from 
the 20 top largest banks attend these roundtables." 
The Petitioner did not establish that any of the round tables require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. Here, the Petitioner did not offer the specific membership or invitation requirements for any 
of the round tables to show that they require outstanding achievements and that membership is judged 
by recognized national or international experts. Instead, he submitted a letter from I who made 
broad assertions about all roundtables in general without providing specific information for each of 
the round tables in which the Petitioner participated. In addition, although I I claimed that 
roundtables are "reserved for top executives and renowned experts in the field,' I did not 
elaborate and conoborate those claims, nor did he demonstrate how being a top executive and 
renowned expe1i equates to outstanding achievements. Fmihennore, the Petitioner did not claim and 
establish that recognized national or international experts judge the roundtable candidates for 
membership. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 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 allied.field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that not only has an individual been invited to 
judge the work of others, but also that the individual actually participated in the judging of the work 
of others in the same of allied field of specialization. 2 The Petitioner claims that his "recruitment 
constitutes [the] Petitioner's meeting a simple criterion regarding being a judge of his peers as [the] 
Petitioner accepted the task of hiring an individual with nearly double his own quantitative experience 
and then proceeded to lobby to secure an above-entry-level salary for this individual." The record 
contains a letter froml I who stated that the Petitioner "voluntarily assumed the role 
of recruiter for several key positions within his department" and "has reviewed more than one hundred 
prescreened (by Human Resources Department) to isolate and bring in these recruits." 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that he participated as a judge of the work of others 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish how recruiting 
individuals to fill vacancy positions is tantamount to participating as a judge of the work of others. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate his designation "as a judge," nor did he show that he 
actually judged the work of others in the same or similar field of specialization. In addition, the 
evidence in the form of a letter from I I does not contain specific information detailing whom, 
when, and what work he judged. Without probative documentation, his evidence regarding his 
recruitment and hiring is inadequate to satisfy this criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
2 Sec 6 USCJS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2(B)(2). 
3 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarzv, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 3 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. The Petitioner asserts: 
[He] is confirmed by CFOs and Treasurers a this current employer and likewise at other 
global institutions to have made major contributions to the industry. These 
contributions include his I rubric, his best practices, his 
participation in annual industry roundtables, [and] his contribution to wording of 
regulations whose wording was adopted in toto into the existing regulations since the 
onset of the pandemic. 
In support of his claims, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that generally praise his work 
for his employers but do not show that he has made contributions of major significance in the field. 
For instance,I !discussed the Petitioner's.__ ___________ and credited the 
Petitioner "with mobilizing the bank's I I personnel long before the government and countless 
other banks had at the beginning of the pandemic" and his "algorithm allowed0 to thrive during 
COVID 19 by becoming a leadin East Coast lender in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans to 
small business." Similarly stated that the Petitioner "was recruited specifically to 
head his own risk assessment team at Bank to perform the same task that he had masterfully 
performed for both an ' Likewise[ indicated that the Petitioner 
"was s ecificall chosen over all other members of the I team experts - including myself 
- at to analyze and provide counsel to mitigate! !deficiencies in the 
existing system." The letters, however, do not show the influence of the Petitioner's work 
beyond Bank or former employers to reflect original contributions of major significance in the 
overall field. 4 Here, the Petitioner's contributions to his employers are more applicable to the leading 
or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied. 
Moreover,! lstated that "the Service may be interested in knowing that on May 21, 2021 
Federal Reserve Board ("Fed") directly contacted. , , in a conference call to congratulateLJ Bank for 
our being best in class and issued its top rating for management" and "informed us our 
best practices are being shared with other Banks across the industry as the new standard for Best 
Practices." However, the Petitioner filed the petition in November 2020. The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1). In addition, I did not further 
elaborate and explain the "best practices" in which he was referring to in his letter. Further, the 
3 See 6 USC IS Policy Manual,supra, at F.2(8)(2) (providing that although funded and published work may be "original," 
this fact a lone is not sufficientto establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, at F.2(B)(2); see also Visinscaiav. Beers,4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a who le). 
4 
Petitioner did not provide evidence from the Federal Reserve Board showing that it "shared with other 
Banks across the industry as the new standard for Best Practices." 
In addition, as discussed previously, I stated that the Petitioner "has also seen him be recruited 
to sit on various industry round tables." I !however, did not further elaborate and explain the 
significance of the Petitioner's participation or service on the various industry roundtables. Moreover, 
I I did not indicate, for example, whether any of the Petitioner's roundtable discussions resulted 
in any majorly significant contributions in the overall field rather than limited to the roundtables. 
Further, I _ indicated that the Petitioner's "suggestions on implementation of I I I rule is trusted and has frequently been adopted in toto by the Fed." ( emphasis in 
original). Again, I did not expound on his claims. He did not identify the Petitioner's specific 
suggestions, nor did the Petitioner reference any supp01iing evidence showing that those suggestions 
have been implemented in the rule, let alone resulted in original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact that the Petitioner's work has had in the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how 
an individual's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. 5 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The US Att'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires his "authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 7 As defined in the academic arena, 
a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse. It is 
written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college, university, or 
research institution. In general, it should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include 
graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article. 8 For other 
fields, a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in the field. Learned persons include 
all persons having profound knowledge of a field. 9 The Petitioner asserts to meet this criterion based 
on "the publication of an annual report relied on by professionals in both this nation's government and 
by investors both individual and institutional, for asset allocation and compliance issues." 
5 Sec 6 USCIS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2(B)(2). 
6 Id. Sec also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatmy 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
origina I contributions of majorsignificancein the field). 
7 See 6 USCIS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2(B)(2). 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
5 
The Petitioner initiall submitted three business documents authored b him on behalf of I Bank: 
' and' 
' In res onse to the Director's RFE, he provided an 
email from him directing the posting of the on website.10 
While the documents appear to be written for learned persons and thus qualify as scholarly articles, 11 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the papers were published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 12 The Petitioner did not show where or if the I 
I I documents were published, let alone published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. As it relates to the liquidity disclosure document, the Petitioner 
did not provide evidence establishing that website qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. Simply posting a document on a company's website, as well as 
authoring material without publication or posting, is insufficient to meet this criterion without 
evidence showing the website's standing or status as a major medium. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 13 The Petitioner initially provided 
evidence of his annual salary of $152,000, including other forms of compensation including one time 
awards, bonuses, and health and wellness incentives. In addition, the Petitioner submitted comparative 
average salary data from a range of salary sources, such as $126,000 (unidentified source), $118,000 
(PayScale with $161,000 in the 90th percentile), and $109,000 (Zip Recruiter with $177,000 classified 
as high). In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner included a letter froml I who 
claimed that the Petitioner "would easily command a BASE SALARY of $250,000 per annum." 
Further, he presented comparative average salary fromZipRecruiter ($85,000 with a $135,000 in the 
95th percentile) and Salary.com ($99,000 with $131,000 in the 90th percentile). 
The Petitioner demonstrated that he commanded a salary above the average of others in his field; 
however, his salary falls short of earning a high one. Again, the Petitioner presented data containing 
a range of salary figures, as low as $85,000 to as high as $177,000. In fact, the record also contains 
salaries from sample companies, such as PayPal ($177,000), E*Trade Financial ($155,000), MPG 
Operations ($169,000), and CLS Group ($162,000), indicating higher salaries than the Petitioner. 
While the regulation does not require the Petitioner to show that he earned the highest salary, the 
record does not reflect that he commands a high salary when compared to other senior managers in 
10 The Petitioner also offered evidence of another for the three months ended on 
March 31, 2021. However, eligibility must be established at time of filing. Sec 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l ). 
11 The indicated that the audience distribution included: bank executives, 
liquidity risk professionals, credit risk professionals, operational risk professionals, and interest rate risk professionals. 
12 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, atF.2(B)(2) (providing that evidence ofprofessionalormajortrade publications or 
in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared to other 
circulation statistics and the in tended audience). 
13 See6 USCISPolicyManual,supra,atF.2(B)(2). 
6 
his field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of 
Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those 
performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grims on v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 
968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Mun iv. INS, 
891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of 
other NHL defensemen). Here, the Petitioner did not show that the comparison of average and median 
salaries reflects that he commanded a high salary in relation to other senior managers in his field. 
Moreover, while I I asserted the salary the Petitioner ''would easily command," this 
regulatory criterion that the individual "has commanded," reflecting actual salaries rather than 
projected or estimated salaries. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the pe1forming arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner asserts eligibility for this criterion because his "corroborating evidence as to the 
commercial success of [his] clients was documented when they followed his advice, defying the 
industry norm, and spun off a less profitable and regulatorily more burdensome retail unit." In order 
to fulfill this criterion, the evidence must show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect 
an individual's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing 
arts. 14 In this case, the Petitioner is not a performing artist, such as a singer or actor. Rather, the 
Petitioner is al lsenior manager at a bank. Thus, the Petitioner does not qualify for this 
criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit evidence of his "commercial successes" in the form 
of "box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales." 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The Petitioner claims that he is "allowed to submit comparable evidence as per the regulations at 
204.5(h)(5) is the fact that the regulation does not require a showing that [he] demonstrate that his 
industry or occupation' does not have standards that readily apply."' 15 On the contrary, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), rather than C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), addresses comparable evidence and allows 
for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. 16 A petitioner 
should explain why he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set 
14 See6 USCISPolicyManual,supra,atF.2(B)(2). 
15 The Petitioner also claims eligibility under the "Mentor" criterion. However, the regulation at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x) does not contain a criterion specifically addressing mentors. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner made 
similar assertions pertaining to satisfying criteria regarding"[s]ervingas a mentoroutside the scope ofhis normal course 
ofbusiness" and "[r]eputation in the field of endeavor." Ifhe wanted to make these claims under any of the ten criteria, 
the Petitioner did not articulate his intentions andidentifythe appropriate criteria. 
16 See6 USCISPolicyManual,supra,atF.2(B)(2). 
7 
forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as well as why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that 
required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 17 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot offer evidence that meets at least three criteria. The 
fact that the Petitioner did not provide documentation that satisfies at least three or could not establish 
eligibility is not evidence that a !senior manager could not do so. The Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the criteria do not apply to his occupation. Fmihem1ore, the Petitioner did not show 
why the other criteria not claimed, such as the awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and published 
material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), would not be applicable to al I senior manager 
or other financial position. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish why his evidence should then 
be considered as comparable evidence under the same criteria that he claimed to meet. In addition, 
the Petitioner did not show how his evidence is "truly comparable" to the criteria listed in the 
regulation. 18 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he qualifies for additional criteria through 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of fmal 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not supp01i a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. See Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 
( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal 
quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive 
by design,");Hamalv. Dep 'tofHomeland Sec. (Hamalll), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL2338316, at *5 
(D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of 
prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 
2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of 
petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) 
(stating that "[c ]omis have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this 
designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (findingthat"arguably one 
of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203 (b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
17Id. 
18 See6 USCJSPolicyManual,supra,atF.2(B)(2). 
8 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Although the Director determined that the Petitioner has served in a leading or critical 
role, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon 
in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9