dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Analyst

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE:MAY 0 3 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S, Cili/.cnship and lillmigration ServICes 
Adminislrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., S.W .. MS 20Y() 
WashinglOll. DC 20S29·20YO 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. * 1153(b)( I )(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 reconsider 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 he 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
he filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
/ 
'. ' / 
t/l{ / Li;(if I lit ,1: Perry Rhew 
. ~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on December 23, 2009, and 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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 USc, § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability, The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained 
national or international acclaim, 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements, See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C,FK § 204,5(h)(3), The implementing regulation at 8 C,FK § 204,5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award, Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence, 8 C,F,R, §* 204,5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x), The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements, 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C,FK § 204,5(h)(3), 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers, -- Visas shall first be made available ", to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (Al 
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 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the Unitcd States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the 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 ,\ 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. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under 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 of 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 pancl, 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; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles II1 the field, in 
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; 
-Page 4 
(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 sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the couli 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. l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concel11S about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concel11S should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." fd. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence 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 the AAO concluded)." fd. at 
1122 (citing to 8 CF.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[irl field of endeavor," 
8 CF.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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have gal11ercd 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C § Il53(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id.atII19. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where 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 or her conclusion by using a one-step anal ysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, file. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive. or evidentiary requiremenl. ... 
beyond Ihose sci forlh in the regulations al8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
-Page 5 
II, Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on January 26, 2009, seeks to classify the petitIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a financial analyst. The petitioner has submitted evidence peI1aining to 
the following criteria under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation o{ the alien's membership in associations in the field .lilr which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements o{ their 
members. as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner's membership with Global Association of 
Risk Professionals (GARP) and Financial Industrial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) failed to 
establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, counsel argues: 
IT Jhe petitioner has submitted evidence of the organizations, the members of the 
organization, the committee members of the organizations, which establishes that 
they are not ordinary people, who could become members of the organizations. 
but people who have the necessary qualification and experience in the Financial 
Field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "ldJocumentation of 
the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in 
an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires 
outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership 
requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or 
current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not 
constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
Regarding GARP, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
I. A screenshot, dated May 11,2009, from www.garp.com reflecting that the 
petitioner is an Affiliate Member of GARP; 
~ The petitioner doe~ not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
2. Screenshots from reflecting background information of 
--3. Two brochures for the 
4. The October/November 2008 Edition of the _ Risk Review, a 
publication o~and 
5. The December 2008 Edition of the 
A review of the documentary evidence reflects that_ is a "membership organization of over 
100,000 individuals, is the only worldwide organization offering comprehensive risk 
management certification, training and educational programs from board-level, allowing a firm 
to create a culture of risk awareness throughout an organization." Although the documentary 
evidence reflects background information regarding , the documentary evidence submitted 
by the petitioner fails to reflect regarding membership requirements, so as to 
establish that membership with requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or experts in their disciplines or ficlds. Moreover, 
according to , in order to become a member of _ an individual merely 
submits an application and pays the appropriate fees3 In the case of the petitioner's "Affiliate 
Member" status, there is no fee. Neither the documentary evidence submitted by thc petitioner, 
nor the information included on s website reflects that membership with requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, and those outstanding achievements are judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Merely submitting 
documentary evidence demonstrating the petitioner's membership with an association is 
insufficient to mcet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ii) without 
documentary evidence establishing that the membership requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Regarding FINRA, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
a. 
who attached a Sn~port 
CUI.IUIICI registration with _ 
b. Screenshots from reflecting background information of 
c. 
_and 
reflecting that the petitIoner passed the 
"Examinations Co. ProductsIVariable Contracts Rep. Exam" on March 28, 
1998. 
1 See h!lpjl\,v\'\'\\-~<J.!.lu)rg/lTlcrnher~hip/join-garp.1®1. accessed on April 26. 2011, and incorporated into the record 
of proceeding. 
Page 7 
A review of the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner renects that_'is the 
largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States" and 
_ oversees nearly 4,800 brokerage firms, about 170,400 branch offices and approximately 
643,000 registered securities representatives." However, the documentary evidence submitted 
by the petitioner fails to renect any membership requirements for _, so as to establish that 
it requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
intel11ational experts 111 their disciplines or fields. In fact, it appears that the petitioner is 
registered with based on his successful completion of an examination. Moreover, 
according to it "requirels] all brokers to register with pass our 
qualification exams and satisfy continuing education requirements.,,4 The AAO is not persuaded 
that passing standardized examinations or maintaining continuing education requirements is 
tantamount to outstanding achievements, as well as they are not judged by recognized national or 
intel11ational experts in their disciplines or fields. Again, simply submitting documentary 
evidence renecting that the petitioner is registered with an organization is insufficient to meet the 
plain language of this regulation without documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner's 
membership with an association requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or intel11ational experts in their disciplines or fields. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his memberships with 
GARP and FINRA require outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or field consistent with the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). It is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of 
this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidellce of'the aliell's origillal scielltific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or bllsilless~ 
related cOlllributions olmajor significance in the field. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. A review of 
the record of proceeding renects that the petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on 
his master's degree thesis. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "Ie]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business~related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language orthe regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. 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." 
,1 See http://vvv,.'\.\'. finra.of1uweh/groups!corpnratc/@com/@about/documents!coroorate/p II K667--l1dL accessed nn 
April 26, 200 I. and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 8 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for 
this criterion based on the petitioner's "Masters Degree Thesis (1985): Prediction of Indian 
Economy for the next 25-30 years," However, counsel submitted a document entitled, "Brief 
History of Indian Civilization," A review of the document fails to indicate that it was authored 
by the petitioner. In response to the director's notice of intent to deny pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), counsel submitted the same document and submitted another document 
entitled, "Book reviews : Discussion: A Brief History of Indian Civilization,Mukesh 
Mirchandani, Indian Economic & Social History Review,Dec 1985; vol. 22: pp. 476 - 489."; 
Furthermore, the document simply contained the following website address: 
However, when accessing the the website failed to reflect a book 
review, article, or thesis that was authored by the petitioner. In fact, the website failed to reflect 
that the purported thesis was actually authored by him and that is was ever published in Indian 
Economic & Social History Review. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish that his 
purported thesis is "Prediction of Indian Economy for the next 25-30 years," as claimed by 
counsel, or is "Brief History of Indian Civilization," as reflected in the title of the document that 
was submitted at the time of the original filing of the petition and in response to the director's 
notice of intent to deny. We note on appeal that counsel refers to the thesis as "original 
Scholarly work" without indicating the actual title of the thesis. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent, objective evidence. Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. Id. If USCIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the petition is true, USCIS may 
reject that fact. Section 204(b) of fhe Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1154(b); see also Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 
F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Ine. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 
(D.D.C.1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). Again, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "leJvidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, afhletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field jemphasis added]," As the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he 
'i Cited as titled on the document. 
--Page 9 
authored the document, the petitioner failed to establish that his purported thesis is an original 
contribution made by him. 
Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner submitted four recommendation letters that refer to a 
thesis. We note that none of the authors of the letters actually name the thesis. Moreover, while 
the authors of the recommendation letters concur with the assessment of the Indian economy, 
they fail to indicate that the thesis is an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
The letters provide only general statements without offering any specific information to establish 
how the thesis has been of major significance. The reference letters are cited below based on the 
assumption that the petitioner authored the thesis: 
•••••••••••••• , stated: 
[The petitioner[ has made an excellent observation in his Thesis work about the 
Indian Economic Situation. The Analysis he has made about the Indian 
Economic situation, is not only applicable to India, but may also apply to the 
current situation around the world including the United States arising out of lack 
of proper planning. [The petitioner'sJ thesis, echoes the situation which we are 
facing and therefore mirrors to the situation around the world. 
Although indicated that the petitioner has made an excellent observation. he failed 
to explain the significance of the petitioner's observation in the field, so as to establish that it is 
an original contribution "of major significance in the field." 
stated: 
[The petitioner's[ thesis, where he made a projection about Indian Economic 
Situation, is very knowledgeable as well as useful in this current economic 
situation. Even though the thesis is about Indian Economy, its usefulness is for 
the US Economy also. 
Similarly, while_ stated that the petitioner's thesis is "knowledgeable" and "useful." he 
failed to discuss the impact of the thesis in the field, so as to establish that it can be considered an 
original contribution "of major significance in the field." 
stated: 
[The petitionerJ has made an excellent observation in his Thesis work about the 
Indian Economic Situation. The Analysis he has made about the Indian 
Economic situation, is not only applicable to India, but also the world including 
the United States. The current economic situation, is a result of the bad planning 
and issues which are plaguing the world, and which could be easily rectified. 
[The petitioner's J thesis, echoes the situation which we are facing at this stage. 
-Page 10 
So, his thesis is not only a mirror to the Indian situation, but also to the world 
situation. 
Likewise, although _ stated that the petitioner's observation is applicable to India and 
the world, he failed to indicate, for example, that any solutions from the petitioner's observations 
have been applied in India or in the world, so as to establish that it is "of major significance in 
the field." 
stated: 
IThe petitioner's1 thesis for the Indian Economy is excellent, as the variation of 
Indian Economy has an impact on the World Economy, including US Economy. 
He has shown the pragmatic approach to the Indian Economy, since it is a vast 
country with variations in different parts of the country. He has rightly mentioned 
that the Indian Government uses poor use of Technology, and its 
protectionist/socialist policies has had an impact of limited growth. 
His analysis for the scope of goods and services in India is excellent, and he is 
absolutely right that the Indian Government should focus on Commercial type of 
Financial Transactions rather then r sic 1 relying on Aid and Assistance. 
His observation of Structural deficiencies, such as need for institutional changes 
in agriculture and the efficiency of much of the centrally directed industrial 
sector, which contributed to economic stagnation, is not only applicable for Indian 
Economy, but also for the United States Economy. The current economic 
situation in the United States, establishes the fact that the issue raised by I the 
petitioner!, is relevant in the current economic situation of the United States. 
Again, while evaluated the petitioner's findings as excellent, he simply 
summarized the petitioner's analysis without establishing that the petitioner's thesis is a 
contribution "of major significance in the field." 
Merely submitting reference letters that favorably critique and agree with the observations of the 
petitioner is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
without documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish that his work has 
impacted or influenced the field as a whole and not limited to the four authors who wrote 
recommendation letters on behalf of the petitioner. This regulatory criterion not only requires 
the petitioner to make original contributions, but also requires those contributions to be 
significant. The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply summarize and 
concur with the petitioner's thesis but do not explain how the petitioner has made original 
contributions and have already influenced the field. The lack of supporting documentary 
evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner's present 
contributions. 
-Page II 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter (}(Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USC1S is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not prcsumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ()f' V-K-, 24 I&N Dec, 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of 
the petitioner's reputation are important considerations, Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance, 
The AAO must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it 
has some meaning. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has 
not only been original, but also unusually influential, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this criterion, 
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that 
he authored the thesis and it is of major significance, which he did not, section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence, Consistent with that statutory requirement, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires more than one original 
contribution of major significance in fhe field, In fhis case, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this 
criterion based on one contribution, 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) only 
require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary, Thus, the AAO can infer that the 
plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning, In a different context, federal COUltS have 
upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
I · " regu atlon, 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion, 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role /<)r orglmizatiollS 
or estahl ishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted the 
following documentary evidence: 
6 See Maramjaya v. USC/S. Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 20(8); Snapll{/mes.co/ll /nc I'. 
Cher/ofl 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30. 2(06) (uphnlding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials), 
Page 12 
1. Five letters from indicating that the petitioner 
worked for the company from 1982 - 1984 as an audit assistant and audit 
trainee; 
2. A letter, dated February 10, 1986, from 
reflecting that the petitioner was employed as 
an instructor from June 10, 1983 to November 30, 1985; 
3. A letter, dated March 21, 1984, 
indicating that the petltloner was employed as an 
instructor for teaching corporate executives "from March 20, 1984 until 
August 16, 19871 emphasis added]"; 
4. A letter, dated January 1, 1998, from ............ . 
reflecting that the petitioner was a management partner from August 1987; 
5. A letter, dated March 10, 1998, from 
6. 
reflecting that the petitioner was employed as a financial 
and securities consultant from 1994 to 1997; 
petitioner at 
7. A letter, dated December 7,2009, from 
for indicating that the petitioner started 
working at _ in 1999 as a financial consultant; 
8. A letter, dated March 19, 1998, which was submitted on behalf of the 
petitioner for his H-l B 
General Manager of the 
States (affiliated with IIililililililili), who indicated that the 
petitioner would be employed as a financial analyst; and 
9. A letter, dated May 7, 1998, to the petitioner from ••••••••• 
requesting the petitioner complete 
various employment forms. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "Ielvidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation 1 emphasis added]." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role 
itself. and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. Based on the submitted documentary evidence listed above. 
we are not persuaded that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role consistent with 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Page 13 
confirmation of the petitioner's employment with 
Moreover, while the authors of the Ictters 
were satisfied with the petitioner's employment and indicated that he was "organized," 
"trustworthy," and "intelligent," the letters fail to reflect that he performed in a leading or critical 
role pursuant to the plain language 'of the regulation, The petitioner failed to submit. for 
example, any documentary evidence comparing his roles or positions at any of these entities to 
other employees, so as to establish that he performed in leading or critical roles, The regulation 
at 8 CFR, § 204,5(h)(3)(viii) does not require the petitioner to demonstrate that he was merely 
employed in positions for establishments or organizations, but it requires the petitioner to 
establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for establishments or organizations, In 
this case, the petitioner failed to establish that his roles as an audit assistant, audit trainee, 
instructor, managing partner, and financial and securities consultant were leading or critical. 
Instead, it appears that he performed routine duties in ordinary positions at several entities, The 
AAO notes, regarding item 3, that the letter was dated March 21, 1984, but ' indicated 
that the petitioner was employed "from March 20, 1984 until August 16, 1987 [emphasis 
added[," The letter was dated one day after the petitioner purportedly began employment and 
pertains to three years of the petitioner's employment even though the letter was written prior to 
the three years, It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record 
by independent, objective evidence, Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies, Matter o( Ho, 19 I&N Dec, at 591-92, Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition, [d, If USCIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the 
petition is true, USCIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U,S,C ~ 1154(b); see 
(/lso Anetekhai v, I.NS" 876 F2d at 1220; Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v, Nelson, 705 F Supp, at 
10; Systronics Corp, v, INS, 153 F Supp, 2d at 15, Finally, the plain language of the regulation 
requires the leading or critical roles be "for organizations or establishments that have a 
u""""buished " The failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing 
Regarding items 7 - 9, similar to above, the documentary evidence reflects that the 
petitioner was employed as a financial consultant. For example, stated that the 
petitioner "specialized in Financial research and analyzing financial goals for his clients," 
Although _ indicated that the petitioner "prepareld[, analyze[d] and advisefdl clients on 
their financial strengths and weakness," he failed to discuss the petitioner's position in relation to 
other financial consultants so as to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role, The AAO is not persuaded that_ letter reflects a leading or critical role; 
rather the letter reflects that the petiti~loyed in a regular position as a financial 
consultant. Likewise, the letter from _ indicated that "the individual holding this 
position must have professional level knowledge and skills in the area of finance," However, 
there is no indication from _ that the position was leading or critical to _ 
Page 14 
According to the screens hot submitted by the petitioner from _ website, _ employs 
214,044 employees. The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence distinguishing 
the petitioner's position from the other 214,044 employees, so as to establish that he performed 
leaulIIg or critical. Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner was in a subordinate position 
to who was the General Manager. Finally, although the petitioner submitted 
screenshots from the petitioner failed to submit independent, objective evidence 
demonstrating that_has a distinguished reputation. 
As discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish that he performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation pursuant to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii). It is the petitioner's burden to 
establish every element of this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remullerationjor services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. A review of 
the record of proceeding reflects that in response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the 
petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
I. A copy of his 2000 Form 1040 reflecting that he filed married filing joint 
return with a total of $73,440 in wages (line 7); 
2. A copy of his 2001 Form W-2 from 
$60,000 in wages (box 1); and 
ref1ecting 
3. A copy of his 1998 Form W-2 from The Equitable reflecting $29,233 in 
wages (box I). 
On appeal. counsel argues: 
[The petitioner] was hired by as Financial Analyst at a salary of 
$41,000+. The prevailing wage for this position is less then r sic] $20.08Ihr -
$41,766/yr, when [the petitioner] was hired. Since, we do not have the record for 
the prevailing wage during the period of 1998 - 1999, we are herewith submitting 
the prevailing wage for the calendar year 2001, which mentions the above 
mentioned wages, for the position of Financial Analyst. 
* * * 
In this case also, the salary of [the petitioner] is above the wage rate of the 
organization. [The petitioneri joined the organization in the middle of 1998, and left 
-Page 15 
the organization in the middle of 1999. He worked for one year in the organization, 
and contributed to the growth of the organization. This establishes that Ithe 
petitioner I commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field. 
Counsel failed to submit any evidence supporting the assertions regarding the 
petitioner's dates of employment and the salary of $41,000+. The 
unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188·89 n.6 (1984). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires 
"Ielvidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field [emphasis added}." According to the screenshot from 
www.flcdalacenter.comsubmittedbycounselonappeal.in 2001, the Level I Wage for financial 
analysts in the New York, NY area was $41,766 per year, and the Level 2 Wage for financial 
analysts in the New York, NY area was $86,320 per year. However, median regional wage 
statistics do not meet this requirement. As such, the petitioner failed to establish that his salary is 
significantly high in relation to other financial analysts as a whole and not limited to the New York 
and surrounding areas. 
Regardless, according to the petitioner's 2001 Form W·2, the petitioner earned $60,000, which 
was $26,000 less than the Level 2 Wage. The AAO notes that the petitioner did not submit his 
Form W·2 for 2000, so the petitioner failed to establish his actual earnings since he filed a joint 
return with his spouse. Nonetheless, the combined wages were $73,440, which were $13,000 
less than the Level 2 Wage. Therefore, even if counsel submitted documentary evidence 
establishing that he earned $41,000 at in 1998 or 1999, which counsel did not, 
those wages only reflect that he earned a salary around the Level 1 Wage and not that he 
commanded a high salary compared to others in his field. Clearly, the pctitioner failed to 
demonstrate that he has commanded a high salary at any time in relation to others in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian Op1I110n, the AAO must 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 thefirl field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.s.c. § I l53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 
I I 15. The petitioner failed to meet any of the criteria, in which at least three arc required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in the AAO's preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 16 
In evaluating the AAO's final merits determination, the AAO must look at the totality of the 
evidence to conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act. In 
this case, the petitioner is a member of two professional associations, who claims to have 
authored a thesis in 1985. The petitioner performed the routine duties as a financial analyst, and 
the petitioner has earned a moderate salary as a financial analyst. However, the minimal 
accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that he "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that he "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the 
field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act. 8 U.s.c. 
* 1153(h)(I )(A)(i). and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "Ia] 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." The 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet the membership criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the AAO again notes that the petitioner based his 
membership with GARP and FINRA without submitting documentary evidence that they 
required outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. Furthermore, based on their respective 
websites. memhership with GARP simply required completing an application and paying dues. if 
appropriate, while registration with FINRA merely required passing an examination and 
maintaining continuing education requirements. Clearly, membership with either association is 
not reserved for an individual that "is one of that small percentage who Ihasl risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 
While the AAO found that the petJtlOner failed to meet the original contributions criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner based his eligibility on a 
thesis without identifying the thesis and establishing that he authored it. Furthermore, the 
petitioner suhmitted recommendation letters that failed to indicate that the thesis has been of 
major significance in the field. It must be emphasized that the favorable opinions of experts in 
the field. while not without evidentiary weight, are not a solid basis for a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter (~f Caron Internatio/lul, 19 I&N Dec. at 
795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. [d. The submission of letters from individuals, 
especially when they are colleagues of the petitioner without any prior knowledge of the 
Page 17 
petitioner's work, 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. at 500, n.2. Again, the letters submitted on 
behalf of the petitioner fail to reflect any original contributions of major significance made by 
the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner's submission of a single purported thesis written in 
1985, a period of 22 years prior to the filing of the petition, is insuffient to establish the sustained 
national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification. 
Additionally, the AAO notes that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
ret1ecting the citation of his purported thesis since he submit evidence suggesting it was 
published in Indian Economic & Social History Review. As articles that are published in 
professional journals are often cited by others in their own work, the AAO evaluates a citation 
history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their 
significance to the field. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the petitioner would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been int1uenced by his 
work and are familiar with it. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand, few or no citations of an 
article authored by the petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his 
field. As the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence of his citation rate, the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that his article has attracted a level of interest in his field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 
Although the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet the leading or critical role criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the AAO notes that the petitioner based 
his eligibility on documentation ret1ecting his employment from 1982 - 1999. While the 
petitioner claimed on his Form G-325A, Information, by the petitioner on 
January 10, 2009, that he has been employed by in New York, NY 
from July 2000 to the present, the petitioner failed to evidence claiming 
that he has performed in a leading or critical role with or any other 
organization or establishment since 1999, a period of eight years pnor to the filing of the 
petition. Even though the petitioner has been employed in the financial field for the last 2S 
years, there is no evidence that he has ever performed in a leading or critical role demonstrating 
that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" 
and "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." 
While the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet the high salary criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner 
ret1ected that he commanded a lower salary than the average Level 2 Wage salary in the New 
York area. Moreover, the petitioner based his eligibility on documentary evidence from 1998 
and 2000 - 200 I. Certainly, such minimal salaries occurring approximately six and nine years 
prior to the filing of the petition are not commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim and that he has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Page 18 
Finally, the AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petJuoner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of the his sustained national or international acclaim, See section 203(b)( I )(A) 
of the Act The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of 
the Act 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 documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 
(July 5, 1991). The petitioner's claim of eligibility for the original contributions criterion is 
based on a single purported thesis and is not consistent with "extensive documentation," as well 
as claiming eligibility for the membership criterion without submitting evidence of outstanding 
achievements of the associations, claiming eligibility for the leading or critical role criterion 
without submitting any documentary evidence demonstrating the distinguished reputation of the 
organizations, and claiming eligibility for the high salary criterion without submitting sufficient 
documentary evidence comparing his salary to others in the field. Moreover, the petitioner 
claimed eligibility for the original contributions criterion based on a thesis with conflicting 
names and without evidence that he authored the thesis. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a job letter from for the leading or critical role criterion that had 
contradictory dates of employment The AAO is not persuaded that such evidence equates to 
"extensive documentation" and is demonstrative of this highly restrictive classification. The 
truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of' 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r. 
1989). 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated his "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept 19, 
1990). 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ahility must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or intemational acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or intemational acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner'S achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
intemational level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
Page 19 
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. S upp. 2d at 1043. 
(j{fd. 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: Thc appeal is dismissed.