dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7953423 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 19, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a software development executive and collateralized loan (CLO) specialist working in 
the field of business and financial technology, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner meets the initial evidence requirement of at least three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and 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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently employed as the Vice President of Applications Development and CLO 
Loan Specialist with an investment firm. The evidence indicates that he has over 20 years of 
experience in software development in the financial technology field. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that he met two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his leading or critical role for a distinguished organization 
and to his high salary relative to others in his field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets 
the evidentiary criteria relating to original contributions of major significance and membership in an 
association requiring outstanding achievements. 1 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, 
we disagree with the Director regarding the Petitioner's salary, and do not find that he meets the 
requisite three alternative evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he received a credential as a Chartered Financial Analyst (CF A) 
from the CF A Institute in 2017. In a letter submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) and resubmitted with his appeal, the President and CEO of the organization explains that the 
CF A Charter is awarded to a candidate after they become a member of the CF A Institute, obtain four 
years of professional work experience "in the investment decision-making process," and pass three 
exams. He also states that "only 16% of the candidates who enroll in this program end up earning the 
1 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's decision regarding the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). We 
therefore consider these issues to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 
2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found 
the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
charter," although he does not explain the reasons behind this statistic. Nevertheless, the Petitioner 
has not established that minimum experiential qualifications and the payment of dues to an association 
are achievements that demonstrate that a candidate stands out from his or her peers. In addition, there 
is insufficient evidence that successful completion of the exams is considered to be an outstanding 
achievement, or that the candidates for the CF A Charter are judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field of financial analysis. As such, the Petitioner has not established that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original 
contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, he may show 
that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted 
or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
The Petitioner identifies his original business-related contribution as the migration, imQlementation 
and inte ration of a s ecialized a lication, for his current em lo er, 
He 
submitted several reference letters in support of this claim, including two additional letters 
accompanying his af peal brief 2 The first of these letters is co-signed by I I Chief 
Information Officer,_ I and a portfolio manager,! I It explains that the 
Petitioner "enhanced our internal systems by implementing and subsequently supplementing and 
enhancing I I a portfolio management analytics and reporting system," the results of which 
"has played an instrumental role in helping our CLO group develop into one of the firm's largest 
revenue generators." The writers go on to state that while the Petitioner's contributions are proprietary 
to I land have thus not been adopted by other investment firms, "they should be considered 
to be a significant contribution to his field as a whole givetj Is leadership role in the CLO 
industry." 
The second new reference letter submitted on appeal is signed byl I CEO of ._I __ _. 
.__------,-,-----' ._ ___ _.I confirms that while investment management firms typically employ 
vendor software applications, "many firms seek to develop their own proprietary technologies" which 
are confidential and may allow them to gain a competitive advantage. 
These letters are in addition to those submitted with the Petitioner's ori
9
inal filing and in response to 
the Director's RFE. One example was submitted byl J CEO of ~------~ r----i-------.=tz'_w:..:.h::.:.o.:..:.....:.in::.:.d.:::1:.::;· cates that he first met the Petitioner as a stock broker with the 
Stock Exchange.I !states that he is aware that the Petitioner's work madel I 
s "loan group highly technologically efficient," despite not claiming to have been employed by 
or worked with the company, and that I I fond managers like I I must "work with 
individuals with the requisite expertise and knowledge" like the Petitioner to design solutions meeting 
accounting and regulatory standards. 
2 All reference letters have been reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in this decision. 
3 
Another reference letter was written b who previously served as a product manager 
ofl I for its developer,~-~and worked with the Petitioner to implement the application 
at I ~ She describes the Petitioner's work to enhance! I and integrate it with other 
systems, and notes that he is "one of those top notch professionals in the wealth management world 
who are experts in IT and experts in structured financial instruments." I I also indicates 
that such individuals "are key players and their valuable contributions are very essential for continued 
U.S. economic success." 
In addition, in a separate reference letter previously submitted,! I indicates that "with the 
help of [the Petitioner's] team as well as the work of other teams at the firm, our loan business has 
grown to 7+ billion as of today and contributes meaningful revenue to the firm." 
While this evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner's original contribution to his employer has 
directly led to more efficient internal operations, improved customer service and business growth in 
its CLO group, it does not establish that it was of major significance to the investment management 
industry in which he is employed or in the overall field of business and financial technology. While 
we acknowledge that such proprietary technology, by its very nature, would not be implemented at 
other investment management firms, or applied more broadly by others in the financial technology 
field, it remains the Petitioner's burden to establish how his contribution has otherwise impacted his 
field of endeavor. The assertion that I Is position in the niche area of CLO trading leads to 
the conclusion that the Petitioner's contribution to his employer is of major significance for the broader 
investment management industry is not supported by the evidence. The record shows I I to 
be a reputable firm in the CLO market, having earned~ laward for "Best New US CLO" for 
LJbut does not otherwise demonstrate that its share of that market or in the investment management 
industry as a whole elevates the impact of the Petitioner's contribution to the requisite level. 
Accordingly, this criterion has not been met. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
As noted above, the reference letters sufficiently establish that in implementing! I and 
integrating it with several other systems, leading to increased operational efficiency and customer 
satisfaction, the Petitioner played a critical role for I I In addition, the record sufficiently 
demonstrates thatl I enjoys a distinguished reputation. We agree with the Director that this 
criterion has been met. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
To satisfy the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that his salary, or total 
remuneration, is high or significantly high, respectively, based on a comparison with others in his field 
in similar positions and geographic locations. 3 In his decision, the Director determined that the 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. at 11 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html, noting that it is the petitioner's burden to provide 
geographical and position-appropriate evidence to establish that a salary is relatively high. 
4 
evidence establishes that the Petitioner's salary is high relative to others in his field. That evidence 
includes the Petitioner's IRS Forms W-2 for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, which show that 
he earned approximately $151,000, $148,000, $164,000 and $148,000 during those years, 
respectively. The Petitioner also submitted evidence that his base salary at the time of filing was 
$150,000, that he earned a $12,000 bonus in 2018, and that the value of his benefits package was 
almost $35,000. However, because the comparative salary survey evidence submitted does not 
indicate that bonuses and benefits were included in all of those figures, we will only consider the 
Petitioner's base salary in making our determination. 
The Petitioner submitted comparative salary data from several sources, which is summarized in the 
table below: 
Source Job Title Location Avg./Med. Higher Salary 
Salary 
FLC Data Center SW Developer, I I $138,861 (Level n/a 
Applications IV) 
OOH SW Developer National $105,590 n/a 
Career One Stop SW Developer, National $77,710- n/a 
Applications $128,960 
(typical) 
US News SW Developer National $101,790 $128,960 (75%) 
Glassdoor SW Developer National $80,018 n/a 
Payscale SW Developer National $70,388 n/a 
We note that with the exception of the data from the U.S. Department of Labor's FLC Data Center, 
the salaries listed above are national averages which do not take into account variances due to local 
costs of living and other factors. This data is therefore not geographically appropriate, which can be 
seen in the significantly higher figure reported for j _ I in the FLC Data Center data, 4 and 
does not provide an accurate or complete basis for comparison to the Petitioner's salary. 
Although not submitted or referenced in the record, the FLC Data Center website provides an 
explanation of the four wage levels presented in its data. Employees at Level IV are considered to be 
"fully competent," "use advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex 
problems," and "generally have management and/or supervisory responsibilities." As this description 
fits that of the Petitioner's skill level and duties as described in the record, it is the most appropriate 
wage level to use as a basis for comparison to the Petitioner's salary. In three of the four years of 
salary data provided, the Petitioner earned between approximately $10,000 - $13,000 above the Level 
IV wage for software developers inl , J while earning approximately $26,000 above that 
wage in 2017. Further, his base salary at the time of filing was approximately $11,000 above that FLC 
Data Center wage for 2018. This comparison with similarly situated workers inl I shows 
that while the Petitioner earned an above average salary, it does not establish that his salary was high 
in relation to those other software developers. Therefore, we disagree with the Director and find that 
the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
4 We note that a review of the source websites shows that in some cases, geographically appropriate data was publicly 
available. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level 
do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance and recognition 
of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is 
consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6