dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 17, 2024 In Re: 34750620 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive in the financial technology industry, seeks classification under the 
employment-based, first preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "exceptional 
ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(l)(A). Successful petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category must 
demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and extensively document recognition of 
their achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met one of the requested visa category's ten initial evidentiary criteria- two less than needed 
for a final merits determination. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in finding 
that he did not also satisfy evidentiary criteria regarding: 
• Published materials about him in his field; 
• His authorship of scholarly articles in the field; and 
• His commandment of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in the 
field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vi), (ix). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa's , Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he has not met two additional evidentiary criteria. We will therefore dismiss 
the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise 
commensurate with "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). 
Evidence must initially demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international recognized 
award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 
If a petitioner meets either standard, USCIS must then make a final merits determination as to whether 
the record, as a whole, establishes sustained national or international acclaim and recognized 
achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field's very top. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B), 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Facts and Procedural History 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Chinese native and citizen, has served as an executive for an 
online retail company in his home country for about the past nine years. He oversees the company's 
financial technology services firm, which employs more than 8,900 people. Under the Petitioner's 
leadership, the firm has integrated artificial intelligence and "big data" technologies into its products, 
which include popular online payment and consumer credit applications. 
The Petitioner states his intent to continue working in the financial technology field in the United 
States. He says he has received two U.S. job offers and that his current employer's U.S. operations 
might employ him. 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. He must therefore meet at least three of the initial evidentiary requirements at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
The record supports the Director's finding of the Petitioner's submission of evidence of his 
participation as a judge of others' work in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). We will next 
review the additional evidentiary requirements he claims to have met. The Petitioner must objectively 
satisfy the parameters of each regulatory criterion. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8). 
B. Authorship of Scholarly Articles 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit "[e ]vidence of [their] authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
1 If an evidentiary standard does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
When adjudicating this requirement, USCIS first determines whether a pet1t10ner has authored 
scholarly articles in the field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). A scholarly article 
reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse and is written by a researcher 
or expert in the field. Id. Scholarly articles also generally undergo peer review by other experts in the 
field of specialization. Id. 
The Agency next determines whether a publication qualifies as a professional, major trade, or major 
media publication. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). In evaluating publications, 
relevant factors include: for professional journals or major trade publications, the intended audience; 
and, for major media, the circulation, readership, or viewership relative to other media in the field. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of an article he wrote in 2023 for the China Banking and Insurance 
News. The article discusses integration of financial services into the Chinese agricultural industry. 
The Director concluded that the record did not demonstrate the article's distribution in a professional, 
major trade, or major media publication. The Director stated that "none of the informational materials 
suggest that the intended audience of the China Banking and Insurance News is tied to a specific 
profession or trade" or "offer any insight to the relative circulation or readership of China Banking 
and Insurance News." 
The Petitioner, however, has sufficiently established China Banking and Insurance News as a 
professional or major trade publication. The phrase "professional or major trade publications" 
"expressly refers to publications which are read by people in a particular profession or trade, rather 
than the population at large." Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5015 SJO (FMOx), 2007 WL 9229758, *6 
(C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007). The Petitioner submitted copies of online information identifying the China 
Banking and Insurance News as a nationwide, daily newspaper published Monday through Friday. 
Overseen by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the newspaper focuses on the 
banking and insurance sectors. Evidence shows that the newspaper's target audience constitutes 
banking and insurance professionals. Thus, the publication does not attract the Chinese population at 
large. The record therefore sufficiently identifies the newspaper as a professional or major trade 
publication. 
The record does not establish, however, the Petitioner's authorship of a scholarly article. Unlike a 
scholarly article, the Petitioner's newspaper piece contains little research or details and only generally 
and briefly discusses its topic. The article's primary purpose appears to be to market the financial 
services and products of the Petitioner's employer. The record also lacks evidence that peers reviewed 
the article or that others in the field cited the piece in their work. The record therefore does not 
establish the article as scholarly in nature. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his authorship of scholarly articles in his field. We will therefore 
affirm the Director's finding on this evidentiary criterion. 
C. High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." 8 C.F.R. 
3 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). USCIS evaluates petitioners working outside the United States, like the Petitioner, 
based on wage statistics or comparable evidence relevant to their work locations. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of original and online versions of his Chinese income tax records for 
2021 and 2022. The original records for 2021 list his total income - including both salary and stock­
related compensation - as 5,567,813.42 RMB, or about $782,060. The original records for 2022 
reflect total income of 7,787,602.62 RMB, or about $1,093,854. He also submitted copies of 2021 
salary guides for China. 
Considering only the Petitioner's salary income, the Director found insufficient evidence of his 
commandment of a high salary or significantly high remuneration for his services. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director should have considered his stock compensation as part of his 
mcome. 
The salary guides provided by the Petitioner, however, do not indicate whether their income figures 
include both salaries and stock-related compensation. The Director assumed that the guides' incomes 
reflect only salaries. So, the Director disregarded the Petitioner's stock-related income. Nothing in 
the record indicates the guides' inclusion of stock-related compensation. The Director therefore 
reasonably considered only the Petitioner's salary. To have his stock-related income considered, the 
Petitioner must show that the incomes listed in the salary guides include stock compensation. 
Otherwise, he must provide data indicating how much stock-related income executives in China in 
positions similar to his typically receive. 
Also, although unaddressed by the Director, the Petitioner's tax records are inconsistent. While the 
copies of the original tax records state his total 2021 income as 5,567,813.42 RMB, the online records 
list salary and stock-related payments that year of only 5,063,413.42 RMB. Similarly, the copies of 
the original tax records state his total 2022 income as 7,787,602.62 RMB. But the online records show 
payments that year of only 6,855.256.22 RMB. Further, the Petitioner provided a letter from his 
employer stating that, beginning in 2020, he received an annual salary of 2,100,000 RMB. The online 
tax records for 2021, however, show his receipt of wages and a 553,000-RMB bonus, totaling 
2,326,165.52 RMB. The online tax records for 2022 similarly indicate wage payments of only 
1,870,057.14 RMB. The Petitioner has not explained these income discrepancies. See Matter ofHo, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring petitioners to resolve inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). The discrepancies cast doubt on the accuracy of 
the Petitioner's evidence and claimed income. 
The Director did not notify the Petitioner of these evidentiary inconsistencies. Thus, in any future 
filings in this matter, he must resolve the discrepancies with independent, objective evidence. See 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence of his commandment of a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration compared to others in his field. We will therefore affirm the Director's denial for 
this evidentiary criterion. 
4 
D. Published Materials 
The Petitioner also asserts his satisfaction of the evidentiary requirement regarding published materials 
about himself. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). But, to obtain a final merits determination, he needs 
to satisfy two more criteria. Thus, we need not reach and hereby reserve consideration of his appellate 
argument regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to 
their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining 
to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his satisfaction of two additional evidentiary criteria for the 
requested category. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5