dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Research

U.S. Departnl~rtt ol'Honreland Sceurily 
0.S. Citizenship and lnlmigration Services 
Office of Adrninrslrative ilppecrls MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 - 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: -JAN 2 2 2010 
SRC 08 225 50421 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
F chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on April 2 1, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically. the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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 (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 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 15, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a financial researcher. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary 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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt qf'lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
At the time of the original filing of this petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion stating: 
[The petitioner] was the recipient of Financial Management Association Conference 
Special Doctoral Travel Award. This is a prestigious international award conferred to 
only a few finest Ph.D students around the world, which helps to prove that [the 
petitioner] stands at the top among her peers. 
However, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner 
received this award. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel 
will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Mutter qf Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). In addition, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
Financial Management Association Conference Special Doctoral Travel Award is a lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Regardless, academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field 
of endeavor. As such, postdoctoral scholarships and student awards cannot be considered prizes or 
awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for postdoctoral travel awards is 
limited to other postdoctoral students. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking postdoctoral 
travel awards. Similarly, experienced experts do not compete for fellowships and competitive 
postdoctoral appointments. Thus, they cannot establish that a petitioner is one of the very few at the 
top of her field. The petitioner has not established that she competed for this travel award with the 
most experienced and renowned members of her field rather than simply with other recent graduates 
who might have difficulty affording the travel costs. 
Page 4 
The petitioner did not contest the decision of the director in this criterion on appeal. We agree with 
the finding of the director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien S work in the field for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
At the time of the original filing of this petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion stating: 
[The petitioner's] articles have been cited by researchers at other research groups 
including some academic institutes such as Yale University, University of Maryland, 
University of California, Federal Reserve Board, as well as financial firms like Morgan 
Stanley. The multicitations [sic] indicate [the petitioner's] work has been widely 
implemented by others in the field. This also means that [the petitioner's] impact is not 
limited to her small circles of colleagues. Rather, she has impacted the whole field. 
Review articles are authored by experts who review and highlight most important 
recent advances in a specific field. Therefore, only most noteworthy research findings 
are being discussed in review articles. [The petitioner's] work has been widely 
regarded as a major advance in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
"about" the petitioner relating to her work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to 
outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. Articles authored by 
the petitioner, or articles which cite the petitioner's work, are not articles about the petitioner relating to 
her work. Thus, while her publications and citations therein are not relevant to this criterion, they will 
be considered below as they relate to the significance of the petitioner's contributions and scholarly 
articles. 
The petitioner did not contest the decision of the director in this criterion on appeal. We agree with 
the finding of the director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien :s participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge ufthe 
work yf others in the same or an allied.field qf speciulizution.for which class~fication is 
sought. 
Page 5 
At the time of the original filing of this petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion stating: 
As a result of international recognition of [the petitioner's] leading expertise, many 
well-known intemational literatures have relied upon [the petitioner's] expertise, 
inviting her to review articles submitted for publications by other researchers. 
Counsel also submitted a letter, dated February 12, 2007, from of Review of 
Quantitative Finance and Accounting (RQFA), Advances in Financial Planninr and Forecasting 
(AFPF), and Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies (RPBFMP). h stated that 
the petitioner served as referee for two papers - "Modeling Value-at-Risk of Oil Prices Using a 
Bootstrapping Approach" and "~i~uidit~~~djusted Benchmark Yield Curves: A Look at Tradin 
Concentration and Information." In addition, counsel claimed that an "email from d 
at Iowa State University, who also serves as editor of The Financial Journal demonstrates [the 
petitioner's] service as reviewer for The Financial Review." We note that in the director's decision, he 
indicated that this email was not submitted with the petition. A review of the record confirms the 
finding of the director that the email was never submitted at the time of the original filing. 
On appeal, counsel claims: 
Service has failed to give the fair value and downplayed the significance of evidence 
submitted in support of the instant petition. Service has been looking for evidence that 
is not customary in the academiclindustry. Rather it is asking for evidence particularly 
for the benefit of immigrant petition. In its denial letter of April 2 1, 2009, for instance, 
Service states in pertinent part, "you submit a letter from the Review Quantitative 
Finance and Accounting stating that you have been a reviewer and that they only select 
leading experts. This letter fails to indicate that you are extraordinary in the field and 
that you were chosen due to your national or international acclaim." As a matter of 
fact, documents previously submitted include languages such as "leading experts" 
"outstanding international reputation" which are similar to an interchangeable with 
"extraordinary" "national to international acclaim." To deny that the self-petitioner 
([the petitioner]) meets this criterion because of the minor discrepancy in wording is 
arbitrary. 
We are not persuaded by counsel's arguments. Although a review of the director's decision reveals 
that the director may have overreached regarding the letter in stating the petitioner failed to establish 
that he was "chosen" due to his national or international acclaim, we agree with the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient information establishing that the 
petitioner's role as a reviewer qualified her eligibility for this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 
204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by 
evidence that the alien has sustained national or intemational acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The evidence submitted to meet this 
criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international 
Page 6 
acclaim.' 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). 
Counsel also submitted a letter, dated May 8,2009, from stating that the petitioner 
reviewed the article, "Noise and Equity Prices Evidence from the Stock Index Future Markets" for The 
Financial Review in December 2006. In addition. counsel submitted another letter, dated May 2, 2009. 
from stating that the petitioner served as a referee for two articles for RQFA and AFPF. We 
note that both letters indicate that the petitioner is an expert of outstanding international reputation and 
acclaim in finance. 
In this case, the record includes evidence demonstrating the petitioner's participation in reviewing 
three articles. We note here that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles or 
papers are selected for publication in financial journals. Occasional participation in the peer review 
process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of her field. Reviewing articles is recognized as a professional obligation of 
researchers who publish themselves in financial journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will 
enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It 
is common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review an article or paper and to offer 
comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in 
determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed an unusually large number of 
articles, received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that she 
meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
At the time of the original filing of this petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion stating: 
Frequently Viewed Papers on worldwide scale, which unequivocally speaks volume for 
the excellence and international impact of [the petitioner's] efforts. 
I We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yusur v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24,2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * l 1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005). 
In support of this claim, counsel submitted an abstract from As indicated in 
the director's decision, the website reflected that the petitioner's article was ranked number 2 for 2 
months, and the all-time rank was 992. Further, the director indicated that the ranking of the article 
did not demonstrate that others in the petitioner's field used her work or applied it in research and 
that it had major significance in the field. On appeal, regarding the all-time ranking, counsel argues 
that the petitioner's article was not uploaded until after November 2006, and "[tlhe fact that [the 
petitioner's] article became the second most frequently viewed article for 2 months is an indication 
of her contribution and impact." 
Contrary to counsel's claims, the current ranking or all-time ranking of articles on a website does not 
establish original business-related contributions of major significance. Evidence of downloaded 
articles does not demonstrate that the theories or practices in those articles were ever applied, 
influenced the work of other researchers, or even if the articles were ever read. We find that 
evidence, such as an individual's research and work cited extensively by other researchers, is far 
more probative than evidence reflecting the number of times an article was downloaded from a 
website. 
representative examples here: 
[The petitioner] has made a breakthrough in this field. She proposed a novel model to 
solve this problem, which significantly reduced the computing time without sacrificing 
the accuracy of the calculations. [The petitioner] further applied the model to the 
pricing of Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and estimated the term 
structure of interest rate, and most importantly, the inflation risk premium. Her 
research not only solves a complicated problem in academia, but also provides useful 
guidance for the government and policy makers. 
[The petitioner] has successfully developed a new credit default swap (CDS) pricing 
model. which considers the correlation between interest rate and default rate. 
[The petitioner] proposed innovative techniques for estimating inflation risk premium. 
The current works most focus on the spread between nominal bond and treasury 
inflation protected securities (TIPS) to proxy the expected inflation rate, but can not 
give a good estimation of how much inflation risk premium should be. [The petitioner] 
extend[s] her model to TIPS market and propose one way to estimate inflation risk 
premium from bond market. 
Page 8 
[The petitioner] investigated the most important factors for deciding CDS spread. This 
is very important because CDS is a novel financial product, and information of this 
market is very small and limited. Using the first hand market data, [the petitioner] 
conducted a pioneer empirical research with cross-sectional and time series analysis for 
the CDS market, which gave a comprehensive overview for this market. 
[The petitioner's] research also covers the comparison between traditional bond market 
and CDS market. One of her paper "The Term Structure of Credit Spread: Theory and 
Evidence on Credit Default Swap" performs a joint analysis of the term structure of 
interest rate, credit spread and liquidity premium. This paper was the first one to 
explain the difference of credit default swap based on liquidity. 
Using two-factor model with correlated interest rate and inflation rate, [the petitioner] 
developed an analytic solution for nominal bond. Most importantly, this paper 
developed one model to estimate the term structure of inflation risk premium, which is 
quite useful for both academic and practical field, especially in the current period with 
high inflation risk. This paper can also provide very instrumental information for the 
policy makers to deal with high inflation risk, which is a major concern for most 
governments. 
[The petitioner] has been working to quantify these credit risks, in specific, to pricing 
credit default swaps. [The petitioner] has successfully developed a new model with an 
analytical solution for CDSs without pursing a numerical solution, and significantly 
reduced the computing time with improved accuracy. 
In this case, the reference letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The opinions of 
experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of 
sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained 
national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien's immediate 
acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements as expert 
testimony. See Matter qf Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS 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 in 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. 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 any 
immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence or original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the petitioner and provide 
examples of her research and work, they fail to establish that she has made contributions of major 
significance in her field. In evaluating the reference letters, they do not specifically identify how her 
contributions have influenced the field; rather, the letters discuss the petitioner's innovative 
methodologies. Letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner 
through her reputation and who have applied her work are far more persuasive than letters from 
independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding 
to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based 
solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not 
specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazurian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9"' Cir. 2009). 
Regarding the petitioner's authorship and citations of her published articles, the petitioner's 
occupation is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing research that did not add 
to the general pool of knowledge in the field. The record also contains evidence of 17 articles that 
cite to the petitioner's work. We must note that while counsel submitted articles with the 
petitioner's work cited, one of the articles has never been published - "Understanding the Role of 
Recovery in Default Risk Models: Empirical Comparisons and Implied Recovery Rates." Counsel 
wrote on the front of the article that publication is "forthcoming." In addition, two of the other 
articles were published after the filing of the petition - "Accounting-based versus market-based 
cross-sectional models of CDS spreads" (April, 2009) and "Does banks' size distort market prices? 
Evidence for too-big-to-fail in the CDS market" (June, 2009). The petition was filed on July 15, 
2008. Since these articles were published after the filing of the petition, we will not consider the 
evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $3 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter qf Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 198 I), that we cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Finally, another article was 
submitted in the Chinese language without certified English language translations - "A Pricing 
Model for Inflation-indexed Bonds." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that "[alny 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English." 
Notwithstanding, a review of these articles reflects that they do not concentrate around, discuss in- 
depth, or debate the petitioner's research. While these articles briefly refer to the petitioner's work 
in the form of citations, they do not reflect that the petitioner's work was of major significance to her 
field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of financial research, it can be expected that the results would have already 
been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult 
to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they 
constitute contributions of mujor significance). Thus, while these publications may attest to the 
originality of the petitioner's work, the record lacks evidence that her work has had a major impact 
on her field. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
business community. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that 
adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to 
the field as a whole. 
While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work, 
none of the petitioner's references provide examples of how the petitioner's work is already 
influencing the field beyond the limited projects on which she has worked. While the evidence 
demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher with potential, it falls short of establishing 
that the petitioner had already made contributions of major significance. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence qf the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
mqjor trade publications or other mujor media. 
At the time of the original filing, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion stating 
"[the petitioner] has authored quite a few research articles in top-notch literatures in the field 
including Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and Finance Research Letters." Counsel 
also submitted the petitioner's curriculum vitae which listed the following publications: 
- An Explicit, Multi-Factor Credit Default Swap Pricing Model With Correlated 
Factors - published in Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis; 
Exploring the Components of Credit Risk in Credit Default Sway - published in 
Finance Research Letters; 
- The Term Structure of Credit Spreads: Theory and Evidence on Credit Default 
Swaps - working paper; 
- Inflation, Fisher Equation and Term Structure of Inflation Risk Premia: Theory 
and Evidence from TIPS - working paper; and 
- Pricing Large Credit Portfolio (CDO) with Fourier Inversion - working paper. 
We note that in the director's decision, he indicated that while counsel claimed that he submitted copies 
of the petitioner's articles, they were never submitted with the petition. On appeal, counsel submitted 
the following articles: 
1. Estimation and evaluation of the term structure of credit default swaps: An 
empirical study - published in Insurance: Mathematics and Economics; 
2. Pricing the Term Structure of Inflation Risk Premia: Theory and Evidence from 
TIPS - unknown publisher; 
3. Dynamic Interactions Between Interest Rate, Credit, and Liquidity Risks: Theory 
and Evidence from the Term Structure of Credit Default Swap Spreads - unknown 
publisher; 
4. Exploring the components of credit risk in credit default swaps - published in 
Finance Research Letters; and 
5. An Explicit, Multi-Factor Credit Default Swap Pricing Model with Correlated 
Factors - published in Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis; 
We note that three of the articles listed on the petitioner's curriculum vitae are working papers. 
Articles which have yet to be published at the time of filing are not sufficient to establish that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. We further note that counsel submitted three additional articles, 
which were not listed on the petitioner's curriculum vitae, for the first time on appeal. Therefore, 
since these articles were not available for the director to review, we find no error in the director's 
decision. 
Regarding Item 1, while the article was received and accepted for publication in May 2008, the 
article was published in December 2008. The petition was filed on July 15, 2008. Since the 
petitioner's article was published after the filing of the petition, we will not consider the evidence to 
establish the petitioner's eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Regarding Items 2 and 3, the articles fail to indicate that they were published in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). It appears that both 
Page 12 
articles are either drafts or works-in-progress and have never been published. The petitioner failed 
to submit any documentary evidence establishing that these articles have been published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Regarding Items 4 and 5, while the articles were published, the only evidence submitted establishing 
that these articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media 
were the previously mentioned letters which indicate the petitioner's publications in Finance 
Research Letters (FRL) and Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA). For example, 
states that "JFQA is one of the top 5 general-interest finance journals. I don't have 
precise numbers, but it probably accepts only 10-1 5% of the articles submitted to it." The petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence demonstrating that FRL and JFQA are professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. Regardless, the publication of two articles is not indicative 
of or consistent with "sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
As publishing research is inherent in the job duties of a financial researcher, published research 
alone cannot serve to set the petitioner apart from others in her field. While we acknowledge that we 
must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular approach to require some 
evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in a field where publication 
is expected of those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. 
Regarding the previously mentioned 17 articles that cite to the petitioner's work, four of which 
cannot be considered, the minimal number of citations is not evidence that the petitioner's work has 
been widely influential in her field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion stating: 
[The petitioner's] annual salary is $170,000, whereas according to US Department of 
Labor, the salary of financial analyst for level one is $40,976/yr and $74,152/yr for 
level 4 (the highest) in New York. Obviously, [the petitioner] has commanded a high 
salary, more than twice the figure paid to the most advanced professionals in the field. 
Counsel submitted a copy of the petitioner's pay statement. In the director's decision, he indicated 
that the pay statement failed to identify the petitioner's employer and could not be considered as 
evidence of salary. Further, the director indicated that the wages paid were for a financial analyst 
and not as a financial researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a letter from the petitioner stating that she is "currently working 
research as Associate in the market Risk Division at - with the annual 
compensation of $200,000." In addition, counsel submitted a letter, dated September 3, 2008, from 
extending an offer of 
employment for the petitioner and stating that "[the petitioner'sfposition will be that of an Associate 
in the Market Risk Division." Counsel also submitted a CODY of the ~etitioner's pavstub along with 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In this case, we cannot consider the petitioner's employment with 
m 
The petition was filed on July 15, 2008. The petitioner was offered a job with 
on September 3, 2008, and started working with 
the filed. Accordingly, the petitioner had not "commanded" any s 
time of filing. 
On appeal, counsel states that "[pllease be kindly advised that analysts have to conduct research to 
do analysis, therefore, from the employer's viewpoint, the distinction between financial researchers 
and financial analysis is not clear." Counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting 
his assertions. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The 2008 Form W-2 from indicates that the petitioner earned a salary of 
$134,415.43. We note that the petitioner did not work entirely for 
- 
in 2008. 
However, the record is unclear as to the petitioner's exact position at A review 
of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, signed by the petitioner on July 9, 2008, 
reflects that the petitioner did not list her occupation or annual income in Part 5, Question 3, and job 
title in Part 6, Question 1. Counsel indicated in his letter accompanying the petition that "[The 
petitioner] is a transcendent finance researcher whose highly acclaimed research efforts have 
significantly impacted the whole field." 
The record contains various claims of occupations for the petitioner. Counsel claims that the petitioner 
is a financial researcher. The unidentified employer on the pay stub indicates that the petitioner is an 
"AVP-Analyst." Even the petitioner's current occupation at -is an "Associate in the 
Market Risk Division." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(3)(ix) requires "[elvidence that the alien has 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." While counsel submitted evidence from wwu.pavscale.com for median salary for both 
financial researchers and financial analysts, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence, such 
as a job letter from indicating the petitioner's specific occupation and job duties. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria 
that must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(2). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has disting~~islled herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at the national or international 
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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.