dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Equity Markets Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
11 
FILE: I, Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 9 2W5 
7 
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. 4 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
I1 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
'Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The pititioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had 
achievkd the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
I the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. 8 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence 
submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
researcher of financial equity markets. At the time of filing, the beneficiary was employed as the Director of 
Research for the petitioner, the New York Stock Exchange, Incorporated (NYSE). The petitioner submitted 
supporting documents including copies of the beneficiary's academic credentials, an excerpt from one published 
article co-authored by the beneficiary, excerpts from five unpublished manuscripts co-authored by the 
Page 3 11 1 
beneficiary, evidence of the beneficiary's membership in one professional association, and letters of 
recommendation from the petitioner's Senior Vice President and seven other experts in the beneficiary's field. 
The director determined the record did not establish the requisite sustained acclaim of the beneficiary. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits a brief, a second support letter and supplementary evidence including ten 
additional recommendation letters. The majority of the evidence submitted on appeal arose after the petition 
was filed. In addition, many of the recommendation letters submitted on appeal discuss work of the beneficiary 
that was not presented until after the petition was filed. Consequently, we cannot consider this evidence. The 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims in the following discussion of the regulatory 
criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary meets this criterion through her designation as an "Outstanding Graduate" 
of Tsinghua University in China in 1992, her receipt of a Guang-Hua Fellowship from the Guang-Hua 
Foundation in 1993, and her obtainment of  istin tinct ion in Ph.D. Studies" from the University of Utah in 1997. 
Yet the record contains no primary evidence of these purported honors. Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
SofJici,22 I&N Dec. 1 58, 1 65 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). Even if sufficiently documented, these accomplishments would not satisfy this criterion 
because they appear to be academic honors for which only students - not established researchers -are eligible. 
The petitioner also claims the beneficiary meets this criterion by virtue of her receipt of an undergraduate 
teaching award in 2001 from Iowa State University. The record contains no rima evidence of this award. 
Yet even if documented, the award would not meet this criterion. -Professor of Finance at 
Iowa state University (ISU) and the beneficiary's faculty mentor during her first year as an Assistant Professor 
at ISU, states that in 2001 the beneficiary "was honored as 'the October Teacher of the Month' at Iowa State 
University as an outstanding teacher and educator," but does not explain the significance of this honor. While it 
may indicate the beneficiary's teaching skills, the award is apparently granted each month to a faculty member 
at ISU. This internal award granted by one academic institution is not a nationally recognized prize for 
excellence in the beneficiary's field. 
The e 'tione her claims that the beneficiary's receipt of two research grants from ISU meet this criterion. 
states, "in the Spring of 2001, [the beneficiary] won a very prestigious research grant from dwir Iowa State University, 'the 2001-2002 Iowa State Research Initiation Grant' . . . . In Fall, 2001, [the 
beneficiary] won 'the 2001 Iowa State University Computation Award' . . . . This award is very prestigious and 
only given to those outstanding researchers who specialize in extensive empirical study." Again, the record 
contains no primary evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of these grants or corroborative evidence of the grants' 
purported prestige. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 'evidence is not sufficient to meet 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Id In addition, internal research grants awarded to the faculty of one 
academic institution do not reflect the recipient's national or international acclaim. 
m 
Page 4 
Finally, the petitioner claims the beneficiary meets this criterion through her "0 
from the Pinhas Sapir Center for Development (Pinhas Center) in Israel in 1999. 
Finance at the University of Utah and the beneficiary's doctoral advisor, explains that he was the beneficiary's 
m tor while she conducted research at Tel Aviv University from 1997 to 1999. During that time, Professor 
rfC states that he and the beneficiary "conducted a research project together that is closely related lo the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and the regional economy. . . . We have received an award from the prestigious Pinhas 
center in 2000 for our outstanding research accomplishments." On appeal, the petitioner submitted ii printout 
from the website of the Pinhas Center, which is part of Tel Aviv University and a letter from profess- 
~irector of the Pinhas Center. ~rofesso~onfirms that "the research project on: 'Continuous 
Trading or Call Auctions: Revealed Preferences of Investors at Tel Aviv Stock Exchange' conducted by Avner 
as financed by the Pinhas Sapir Center for Development, Tel Aviv University, 
during the years 1999-2000." Yet, neither this letter nor the printout explain the eligibility criteria or selection 
process for grants made by the Pinhas Center and the record is devoid of any other evidence that receipt of such 
a grant constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award in the beneficiary's field. 
In sum, the record contains no primary evidence of six of the beneficiary's seven purported honors. The 
submitted evidence also does not establish that the beneficiary's joint receipt of a research grant from the Pinhas 
Center was a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in her field. Consequently, 
the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which classijication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary meets this criterion through her membership in the Western Finance 
Association (WFA), the Eastern Finance Association (EFA), the European Financial Management Association 
(EFMA), the American Finance Association (AFA), the Financial Management Association International 
(FMA), the Market Microstructure Research Group of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and 
the Chinese Finance Association (TCFA). 
The record contains no evidence of the petitioner's membership in the WFA, EFA, and EFMA or any evidence 
that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to membership in these three associations. Again, simply going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Id. The petitioner submitted a printout from the website of the AFA, but no evidence of the 
beneficiary's membership in this association. Moreover, the submitted ~rintht does not indicate that 
outstanding achievements are prerequisite to AFA membership. The printout states that the association has 
"over 8,000 members throughout the world," many of whom are faculty members at prestigious universities and 
some of whom have won the Nobel Prize in Economics. The printout does not, however, indlcate that 
appointment at a prestigious university or receipt of the Nobel Prize is required (or even typical) of the majority 
of AFA members. Rather, the printout indicates that the association's "Society of Fellows" consists of "those 
members who have made a distinguished contribution to the field of finance." The record contains no evidence 
of the beneficiary's AFA regular membership or membership in the AFA Society of Fellows. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the TCFA. Seven support letters 
affirm the beneficiary's service on the TCFA Board of Directors and as Chair of the TCFA New York Chapter. 
A printout from the TCFA website and additional information submitted with the letter indicate 
Page 5 " 
that the TCFA is a non-profit professional association whose mission "is to facilitate academic research, 
industry practice, and business development in the US and China." According to the printout, the TCFA is 
sponsored, in part, by the Asian Development Bank, the Ford Foundation, the National Science Foundation of 
China, and the World Bank and has a roximately 600 members in the United States and abroad. Although the 
TCFA information accompanyin letter states that the association's members "represent the most 
outstadding and accomplished professionals in the financial field," the record contains no documentation of the 
TCFA membership criteria or other evidence that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to TCFA 
membership. 
Finally, the petitioner submits on appeal a letter fro-rofessor of Economics and Finance 
at the University of California, San Diego and Director of the Market Microstructure Research Group of the 
NBER~ ~rofesiortates,  he NBER Market Microstructure Research Group is an association 
comprised of approximately 50 of the leading scholars who do research on the microstructure of securities 
markets. Its members are drawn from both academia and industry from the US and from around the world. . . . 
[The beneficiary] is an extremely active and important member of the group who occupies a unique position 
(shared with only one other group member) as an academically-trained, Ph.D. researcher who is equally at home 
in real financial markets." ~rofesso~x~lains that the group's members share "an interest in the 
process of price formation: how the trading activities of investors with different information and beliefs about 
security valuer interact and deliver market prices that inform us about both." Yet Professor or not 
state the group's membership eligibility or selection criteria. The record contains an "Invited Participant List" 
from the May 16, 2003 NBER Market Microstructure Society Meeting which includes the petitioner in the list 
of 35 participants. The beneficiary is included in a similar list from the society's December 11, 2003 meeting 
that we cannot consider because it took place after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The 
petitioner also submitted a printout from the NBER website stating that the bureau is "a private, nonprofit 
nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works." 
The printout does not state the NBER membership criteria or selection process. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner is a member of the Microstructure Research Group of NBER and participated in one meeting upon 
invitation (prior to filing this petition). While this invitation may reflect the beneficiary's inclusion in a 
selective group, the record does not persuasively demonstrate that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to 
membership in the NBER or its Market Microstructure Research Group. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not 
meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classifcation is sought. 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary met this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner claims the 
beneficiary satisfies this category through her participation as a discussant of the; work of other financial experts 
at various professional conferences. Pages six through nine of the petitioner's appellate brief contain a table of 
conferences that the beneficiary purportedly attended from 1998 through 2004. However, 12 of the 14 exhibits 
submided under this criterion document the beneficiary's participation in conferences after the petition was filed 
and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of 
filing; a petition cannot be approved at a hture date after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Id. 
Only two of the relevant exhibits arose prior to filing. The first is a program from the Thirteenth Annual Asia- 
Pacific Futures Research Symposium held in Shanghai, China on February 27 and 28,2003. The progam lists 
the beneficiary as the discussant of a manuscript entitled "Competition, Fragmentation and Complementarity: 
The Case of Equity Index Futures versus E-Mini Equity Index Futures." The second document is a copy of the 
beneficiary's presentation for the October, 2002 FMA conference entitled "An Analysis of the Introduction of 
the Market Makers to the Jasdaq." Even if this evidence were sufficient to show the beneficiary's judgement of 
the work of others in her field, it alone would not meet this criterion. The beneficiary's critique of just two 
manuscripts in her field does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner explains that 
the beneficiary could not attend international conferences outside of the United States until obtaining an 
advance parole document in 2004. However, the petitioner listed 28 professional conferences or meetings that 
the beneficiary attended prior to 2004 (including five held in other countries), participation in which could 
potentially reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Yet the petitioner submitted no documentation of the 
beneficiary's participation as a discussant at any of these meetings. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet 
this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien 's original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in theJeld. 
The petitioner initially submitted eight recommendation letters and on appeal, submits an additional 11 letters 
written by the beneficiary's supervisors, colleagues and collaborators. While such letters provide relevant 
information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's 
eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in 
his or her field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he or she has worked directly. Even when 
written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less 
weight, than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other 
evidence of the beneficiary's contributions. 
I 
The following and scholars wrote support letters for the beneficiary that were submitted 
with the petition: Chief Economist and Senior Vice President for the petitioner and the 
Professor and Deputy Associate Dean of the School of Economics 
and Management at Tsin ua University in Beijing, China and the beneficiary's former supervisor at the 
People's Bank of China; gh Executive Managing Director for GTJA Securities Company, Limited in 
Shenzhen, China' and the beneficiary's former supervisor at J&A Securitie 
at the University of Utah School of Business and the beneficiary's doct 
Professor of Finance at the Universi of Utah School of Business and a member of the beneficiary's doctoral 
dissertation committee Professor of Finance and Department Chair at the University of Utah 
School of Business who also knew the beneficiary as a graduate student; Professor- 
at Iowa State University (ISU) and the beneficiary's former faculty mentor an co eague at ISU; and 
kiting Academic Scholar at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and a co-author 
and former colleague of the beneficiary at ISU. 
I ~irector letter is written on the letterhead stationary ol~ecurities and signed with his 
title as Executive Managing Director for this firm, yet ~irectomstates, "At the time when I write this 
letter on behalf of [the beneficiary], I am the Deputy Chief Investment Office [sic] of Goldenstate 
Securities." The record does not explain this discrepancy. 
Page 7' 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional support letters from the following individuals 
Managing Director and Senior Economist and the beneficiary's colleague at 
Professor of Finance at Duke University who has known the beneficiary since 200 
Executive Director of the Hong Kong ~siociation of New York who has worked with the beneficiary on events 
organized by the Association and TCFA; Senior Vice President and Director of Research for Thomas 
White International, Limited who has worked with the beneficiary for the TCFA Managing Director 
and Portfolio Manager at Fore Research and Management who has known the beneficiary as a colleague since 
2002;resident of TCFA and Vice President of Global Structured Credit Markets at Citigroup, 
who has worked with the beneficiary for TCFA; Executive Director Structured Products Group 
for Morgan Stanley Asia who has known the beneficiary for more than six year-~irector of 
China Asset Management at Lord, Abbett and Company, LLC who has known the beneficiary for more than 
three years; anaging Director and Senior OppenheimerFunds who has 
known the beneficiary since she began working at NYSE; and anaging Director of Structure 
Finance Ratings for Standard and Poor's who has known 
Before coming to the United States, the beneficiary was e financial economist at the People's Bank 
of China. Her former supervisor at the Bank, Profess explains that they worked together on 
"developing and designing . . . the first electronic inter-ba stem in China." Professo~explains 
that the beneficiary was "one of the three economists we had on the project . . . . [and] led her team to build a 
sophisticated statistical model and conducted 100 million times of simulation in inter-bank transactions." 
Professo-rther states that the beneficiary "developed a gravity-based statistical model to iiccurately 
estimate the future payment transaction flow between any two banks offices. . . . In addition, [the beneficiary] 
played) an integral role in leading our team to conduct extensive research and in-depth analysis of payment 
system worldwide. . . . Her contribution in estimating the payment transaction volume and studying the inter- 
bank activities and financial institutions has provided a great support for us to make effective policies in 
designing and developing China's long-term electronic payment system." Yet the record contains no 
corroborative evidence that the beneficiary's work influenced the banking industry in China outside of the 
People's Bank or was in any other way recognized as a major contribution to her field by other Chinese 
financial experts. 
The beneficiary subsequently worked as a senior securities analyst at J&A Securities in China from 1993 to 
1994. Her former supervisor at this company states that the beneficiary was "on the top of the Junior 
Analyst Lead Table in our firm for three seasons in a row. [Her] outstanding research work has made her 
become one of the 10 Star Analysts in our company in 1994." Specifically, the beneficiary "managed and 
instructed a software company to design and develop an effective information system that was specially suited 
for our company's business operatiork." She "develop[ed] a dynamic strategy f portfolio balancing'' and made 
"an exceptional contribution to our daily investment operation." Director &explains that the beneficiary's 
work "also has had a lasting impact on the industry practice. Later that year, many companies in the industry 
realizeh the efficiency and economic value of the financial information system and the automatic stock-bond 
balancing investment process, and began to develop their own systems." However, the record contains no 
letter is unsigned. On page 20 of the appellate brief, the petitioner explains that "has 
a ore since the Tsunami. We will provide her signed letter upon her return." To date, we have 
not rec~ived- signed letter. 
corroborative evidence of any other companies that developed such systems in direct response to the 
benefidiary's work. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary left China in 1997 to enroll in a doctoral program at the University of - Utah. ~rofessorthe beneficiary's doctoral advisor, explains that the beneficiary's dissertation research 
on the ire1 Aviv Stock Exchange was published in the Journal of Finance. The record contains an excerpt of an 
article entitled "Continuous Trading or Call Auctions: Revealed Preferences of Investors at the Tel Aviv Stock 
Excharige" that was published in the February 2002 edition of the Journal of Finance. profess- the 
lead author of the article and the beneficiary is one of his two co-authors. Professor esses that the 
beneficiary "did tremendous work in this project [and her] contribution made this research project a great 
success." Professor Kalay adds that "[wle have received an award from the prestigious Pinhas Sapier Center in 
2000 for our outstanding research accomplishments. Our findings and research results has [sic] also been cited 
in the Year Book of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange." ~rofesso- further notes that the "study provided 
strong support to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange for their decision to move large cap stocks as well as small caps 
stocks to the new trading system." As discussed above under the first criterion, the record affirms that Professor 
Kalay and the beneficiary received funding from the Pinhas Center for this research, but the evidence does not 
demonstrate that such funding constitutes a prestigious award. The record is also devoid of any evidence of the 
citation of this work in the Year Book of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange or that the Exchange relied on this 
research when making their decision to move large and small cap stocks to the new trading system. 
Professor 
bh 
also of the University of Utah, further explains that the beneficiary's "dissertation 
research a out t e optimal trading mechanisms has very valuable policy implications to many stock exchanges. 
. . . [The beneficiary] has shown empirically that investors prefer continuous trading in the sense that the 
continuous trading hel~s to im~rove market liauiditv of the traded securities and thus attract investors." 
~rofesso- sites that ;he beneficiary's ;orkin the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange "gained much attention 
[and her] research has been presented in many seminars and international conferences."ffirms 
that the beneficiary's research "won the respect of the financial community" and was presented at four 
"prestigious international financial conferences." The importance of this work is also noted by Pamela 
Moulton, professor - andyet the record contains no evidence that the 
beneficiary's co-authored article on this topic has been cited by other financial professionals or siholars in their 
publications and the petitioner submitted no other documentation that the beneficiary's work in this area has 
been recognized as a major contribution to her filed in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
After obtaining her doctorate, the beneficiary became an Assistant Professor of Finance at ISU. Professor 
chair of the ISU Department of Finance, notes that the beneficiary received two ISU research grants to 
support her work. He explains that the beneficiary "has conducted research on man issues, that have significant 
implications for the US equity market growth and investor welfare.' -he beneficiay's former 
colleague at ISU, explains their joint research p accurately measure trading cost on the New 
York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq." According 
. . the research suggests a new rule of measuring 
and estlmatin execution services that is more accurate than the "5-second trade-quote matching algorithm 
tates, "Our research has received significant attention in 
presented our research work in several international 
financial conferences.' adds that their co-authored manuscript entitled "The Sensitivity of 
Effective Spread is under publication review with the Journal 
Page 9 
land   ow ever, the article written by the beneficiary and ~rhas not been 
published and the record contains no corroborative evidence of the beneficiary's presentation of this work at 
professional conferences. 
The petitioner left ISU to work at the NYSE. In his first letter, plained that the beneficiary 
collaborated with him "on an important research project about market design and volatility. . . . We studied a 
group bf firms that switched listing their stock in one market (Nasdaq) to a different market (NYSE) during the 
year of 2002. . . . [We] have found very significant changes in the patterns of how volatile stock prices are when 
stocks switch from one type of market to another. Moreover, the efficiency of the price mechanism seems to be -. 
affected as well. Our findings have implications for the development %nd regulations of the US ca ilal market 
o discussed by Professo A 
The record contains a copy of a manuscript entitled "Market 
vidence from Recent Listing Switches" and co-authored by Mr. 
with the petition is identified as "First Draft: September 11, 
2003." On appeal, the petitioner submits a later version of this paper identified as "This Draft: December 23, 
2003," which we cannot consider because it was written afier the petition was filed. The petitioner must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 [&N Dec. 
at 49. 
In his second recommendation letter submitted on appeal, tats that this research was "first 
released by the NYSE to the financial industry in December 6,2003," that his and the beneficiary's co-authored 
manuscript was ranked as one of the "Top Ten" research papers by the Social Science Research Network for 
2003-2004; was cited in five media reports between December 4, 2003 and January 2005; was cited by NYSE 
CEO during his testimony to the Senate Banking Committee in August 2004; was cited in the NYSE 
2003 Annual Year Book; and that he and the beneficiary have been invited to present their research at several 
prestigious institutions. We cannot consider this evidence of the impact of this research because it arose afier 
the was filed. Similarly, we cannot consider the beneficiary's contributions to the 2004 NYSE Hybrid 
because the record Market Design regulatory proposal or her co-authored manuscript with 
indicates that these projects were also completed after the petition was I e e pettt~oner must establish the 
beneficiary's eligibilifyat the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a futire date after the beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Id. 
In his second letter SO discusses the importance of the beneficiary's research on execution quality 
and inter-market competition and the policy implications of market design. The beneficiary's work on the 
former topic is documented by a manuscript entitled "Public Disclosure and Private Decisions: The Case of 
by the beneficiary- of the NYSE 
The submitted copy of the manuscript is identified as "Flrst Draft: 
explains that this paper "has provided a creative and high quality analytical 
market and made a strong impact to the field. The paper is also 
market, and has been accepted for presentation by a number of 
prestigious national conferences and seminars. Currently the paper is in the final stages of review by the Review 
of Financial Studies." also notes the significance of this work, but the record contains no 
evidence that this article has been published and the' petitioner provides no corroborative evidence of the 
manuscript's presentation at financial conferences or its citation by other researchers. 
The beneficiary's work on the policy implications of market design is evidenced by a manuscript entitled "Is 
Penny Trading O~timal for the Closed-End Fund in China?" This paper is co-authored by the beneficiary and 
of be Shanghai Stock Exchange. The submitted co~~of the manuscript k identified as  his 
explains that based on this work, the beneficiary "made a 
recommencjation to the China ecurit~es Regulatory Commission (CSRC) to cut the tick size in the Chinese 
stock marcet for reducing the transaction cost for individual invest 
Chinese regulatory authorities and implemented on March 3, 200 
~xchan~es." The significance of this work is also noted by Professo 
However. the ~etitioner submitted no urimarv evidence that the bene 
the CSRC and implemented on t Exchanges. The record is also devoid of any 
evidence that this work has bee nal conferences in the beneficiary's field, or 
otherwise recognized as a majorcontribution to her field (beyoid the assessments of four of the submitted 
recommendation letters). 
Beyond the scholarly significance of the beneficiary's work, the record indicates that her research findings also 
industry professionals beyond these seven individuals in a manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Finally, several letters explain that the beneficiary has made significant contributions to the exchange of 
business expertise between U.S. and Chinese professionals in the financial industry. xplains that the 
beneficiary's "work with the TCFA has influenced business development by US financial institutions in China. 
. . . It is tremendously beneficial for the US investors that [the beneficiary] works as a conduit through the New 
York Stock Exch d TCFA to 
and China." states that 
development and regulation in the 
transmit the knowledge and experience in capital markets between the US 
the beneficiary "and the TCFA board are working to introduce the current 
U.S. debt capital market to China. [The beneficiary] has engaged in 
extensive studies and research on the topic and has worked with both US and Chinese institutions in developing 
exchanges with China." opines that the beneficiary's "role in the Chinese Finance Association aids the 
US capital market and the New Yor ck Exchange attracting [sic] Chinese counterparts as investors and as 
potential listing companies. kSfo also explains that the beneficiary "brings a unique perspective 
and understanding of the international capital markets and the needs and cultural issues confronting Chinese 
corporations. . . . [Her] research, knowledge and expertise give the New York Stock Exchange and U.S. 
financial institutions a competitive edge." Despite these favorable assessments, the record contains no 
corroborative evidence of the beneficiary's work in this area. For example, although several letters mention 
meetings and conferences organized by the beneficiary for TCFA, the record contains no documentation of any 
of these events that took place prior to the filing of this petition. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary has conducted valuable research in her field and has co-authored one 
published article. The evidence does not demonstrate, however, that the beneficiary's work has been recognized 
as making major contributions to her field beyond the circle of her colleagues who have written the submitted 
support letters and in a manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. Consequently, she does not meet 
this criterion. 
{vi) Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary meets this criterion by virtue of her co-authorship of seven manuscripts. 
One of these papers was written after the petition was filed and cannot be considered. The petitioner must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. Of the remaining six manuscripts, the record contains evidence that only one has been published. This 
article is entitled "Continuous Trading or Call Auctions: Revealed Preferences of Investors at the Tel Aviv 
Stock Exchange" and was published in the February 2002 edition of the Journal of Finance. Many of the 
beneficiary's recommendation letters discuss the importance of this article (as noted above under the fifth 
criterion) and the prestige of the Journal of Finance, but the record is devoid of any evidence that this article has 
been cited in the scholarly or professional publications of other experts in the beneficiary's field. Co-authorship 
of just one published article does not demonstrate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
i 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJieId at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
As discussed above under the fourth criterion, the petitioner claims the beneficiary has presented her work at 
numerous professional conferences in her field. Documentation of such presentations could serve as 
comparable evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility under this category pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4). 
However, the majority of the relevant evidence submitted arose after the petition was filed. Twelve of the 14 
exhibits documenting the beneficiary's conference presentations are dated after the petition was filed on October 
2, 2003 and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the 
time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record documents just two conference presentations made by the beneficiary prior to filing. The first is a 
program from the Thirteenth Annual Asia-Pacific Futures Research Symposium held in Shanghai, China on 
February 27 and 28, 2003. The program lists the beneficiary as the discussant of a manuscript entitled 
"Competition, Fragmentation and Complementarity: The Case of Equity Index Futures versus E-Mini Equity 
Index Futures." The second document is a copy of the beneficiary's presentation for the October, 2002 FMA 
conference entitled "An Analysis of the Introduction of the Market Makers to the Jasdaq." Professor 
the University of Utah, notes that the beneficiary "presented two of her research projects in the 2002 r lnancial 
Management Association annual meeting, and also has been invited to give discussions to two academic papers 
written by other scholars in October 2002. lso states that he and the beneficiary have presented 
their co-authored manuscript, "The Sens~t~vity of Effective Spread Estimates to Trade-Quote Matching 
~l~orithms," at "several international financial conferences" such as the 2001 FMA Conference, the 2002 
Eastern Financial Conference and the 2002 EFMA Conference. of Thomas White International, 
Limited, also notes that the beneficiary "presented her research work and chaired an academic session" at the 
March 2002 conference of the Midwest Financial Association. Yet Professo 
do not state that the beneficiary was a keynote speaker at any of these conferences or that her work was 
exceptionally well received by the conference participants. 
Executive Director of the Structured Products Group at ~sia whose has worked 
with the beneficiary for the TCFA, explains that the beneficiary "played a lead role at the [I998 TCFA] 
Conference as a discussant and record contains no corroborative evidence of the beneficiary's 
participation at this conference Iso states that the beneficiary's "research on capital market and 
competition was highlighted at TCFA's 9" annual conference in New York City in October 2002. . . [The 
beneficiary] first spoke on the importance of currency issue to the future develo ment in the United States and 
China and then introduced ~rofessom a Nobel laureate. dof Standard & Poor's, also 
discusses the petitioner's participation in the 2002 TCFA conference where she "chaired the luncheon session 
featuring the Nobel Prize recipient profess-I was impressed by [the beneficiary's] speech of 
how macroeconomic factors, such as currency exchange rate and interest rate, can affect the business 
opportunities between the US investors and China financial institutions. [Her] speech motivated conference 
participants to appreciate the importance of currency exchange rate and the business opportunities for the US 
investors in emerging markets, such as China." Yet the record contains no corroborative evidence of the 
beneficiary's participation in the 2002 TCFA conference or the purported appreciation of the importance of her 
speech by other conference participants. 
The record documents only two presentations of the beneficiary's work at professional conferences and meetings 
in her field. The evidence submitted does not demonstrate that, at the time of filing, the beneficiary's 
presentations had influenced or garnered significant recognition by other experts in her field (beyond her 
recommenders) in a manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not 
meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
At the time of filing, the beneficiary was a Director of Research for the petitioner, the NYSE. On appeal, the 
petitioner explains that "[blased on her significant contribution, [the beneficiary] received a promotion to the 
level of Managing Director in 2004, confirming the recognition that she has received from the senior 
management of the New York Stock Exchange." We cannot consider the beneficiary's new position because it 
arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; 
a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)( 12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record shows that the beneficiary is one of three economists employed by the petitioner in its Research 
Division which consists of approximately 20 staff members. In his first letter submitted with the petition, Mr. 
explains that the beneficiary has contributed to NYSE research on market design and volatility in which 
she "has demonstrated her wide knowledge in the market microstructure theory, as well as her solid training in 
empirical research. Her contribution to the project is crucial to our success.' also described the 
beneficiary as "very valuable as a professional colleague within the Research Department" whose continued 
employment at the NYSE "is crucial to the Exchange for maintaining research and business excellence." In his 
second letter submitted on appeescribes additional contributions that the beneficiary has made 
to the NYSE since the petition was filed that we cannot consider. conside- 
description of the beneficiary's role at NYSE because cites examples of the 
beneficiary's work that were completed after the ~etition was file must establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility at the time ;f filing; a petitioi cannot be approved at a iture date after the beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Id. 
We do 'not dispute that the NYSE has a distinguished reputation. However, the rkcord does not persuasively 
demonstrate that the beneficiary played a leading or critical role for NYSE at the time of filing. Some of the 
beneficiary's support letters discuss the significance of her role at NYSE and the record shows that the 
beneficiary was invited to one meeting of the NBER Market Microstructure Society while employed at the 
NYSE (and prior to filing this petition). Yet the petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's participation 
at just two professional conferences while employed by NYSE (and prior to filing this petition) and the record 
contains no other evidence that the beneficiary's role at NYSE reflected the requisite sustained acclaim at the 
time of filing. 
The record also does not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion through her role with TCFA. 
Although many of the support letters discuss the beneficiary's work for this organization, the record contains no 
corroborative evidence of her position with the association at the time of filing, no documentation of the TCFA 
events organized by the beneficiary prior to filing this petition, and no independent evidence that the 'TCFA has 
a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The Form 1-140 lists the beneficiary's annual salary as $150,000. In the petitioner's initial brief, - 
stated that the beneficiary "is compensated at an annual rate of $120,000. In addition, she is eligible to receive 
an annual bonus that could be as much as 16 - 20 % percent of her base salary." The beneficiq7s payroll 
statements submitted with her Forin 1-485 show that as of September 4 2003 she earned approximately 
$1 10,769.12 per year. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter fro Senior Staffing 
~peciblist at the NYSE, who verifies that the beneficiary7s "total comP-and benefits for 
2004, was $267,000," which "ranks her in the 98" percentile of the Exchanges salary distribution for non-officer 
employees."lso explains that the beneficiary would "command a significantly higher 
compensation package if she held a similar position in the 'for profit' sector of the financial community." We 
cannot consider this evidence of the beneficiary's 2004 compensation because it was granted after the petition 
was filed. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. Id. Moreover, the 
petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary's compensation at the time of filing was significantly 
higher than other researchers in her field employed at non-profit organizations or comparable to the salaries of 
such individuals at the very top of her field. Consequently, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(lXA), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the beneficiary is an accomplished financial researcher who has made valuable 
contributions to her field. However, the record does not establish that the beneficiary had achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field at the time of filing. She is thus 
ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C1 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), and her petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings rema'ins entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordirgly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new petition under Section 203(b) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b), with the requisite supporting documents. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.