dismissed EB-1A Case: Government Financial Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 044 54917 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 8 2 2005 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ecided your case. -Anp further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
.!r Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 044 5491 7 
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 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. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established 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 
the United States. 
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)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), 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 as an alien with extraordinary ability in government financial 
management for developing countries. The record shows that at the time of filing, the petitioner was employed 
as a Technical Assistance (TA) Advisor at the Headquarters Office of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 
Washington, District of Columbia. The petitioner submitted supporting documents including his curriculum 
vitae and academic credentials, newspaper articles concerning his work in Bahrain in 198 1, excerpts of ten IMF 
reports written or co-authored by the petitioner, evidence relating to his membership in one professional 
association, documentation of his income, a report purportedly authored by the petitioner for the Ministry of 
EAC 03 044 549 17 
Page 3 
Finance of India in 1987, and nine support letters written by individuals who have worked with the petitioner. 
The director found the record did not establish that the petitioner had achieved the requisite sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief, copies of documents previously submitted and new evidence including 
printouts from the websites of newspapers that published the articles submitted with the petition, resumes of the 
authors of some of the support letters previously submitted, a second support letter from the petitioner's 
supervisor at the IMF, a letter from the World Bank to the IMF concerning a project on which the petitioner 
purportedly worked, copies of three manuscripts that cite the petitioner's work, excerpts from 14 reports written 
or co-authored by the petitioner after the petition was filed, a printout from the IMF's website, six additional 
letters from individuals who have worked with the petitioner, printouts of electronic mail messages concerning 
the petitioner's invitation to serve on an adhoc working group organized by the World Bank, and additional 
documents relating to the petitioner's salary. 
Much of the evidence submitted on appeal arose after the petition was filed and cannot be considered. The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The remaining new evidence does not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and 
the appeal will be dismissed. We address counsel's claims and all of the evidence properly submitted in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrfication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion through his associate membership in the Institute of Cost 
and Works Accountants of India (ICWAI) and his membership in the International Consortium for Government 
Financial Management (ICGFM). On page 10 of his initial brief, counsel stated that "[mlembership in ICGFM 
is exclusive and consists of top academics and policy makers in financial management from around the world." 
The record documents neither the petitioner's ICGFM membership nor the alleged exclusivity of the 
organization. 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 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner submitted a certificate evidencing his associate membership in ICWAI and a printout from 
ICWAI's website. The printout indicates that associate ICWAI membership requires only passage of an 
accounting examination and at least three years of relevant work experience. The record contains no evidence 
that such professional qualifications constitute outstanding achievements in India. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion. On appeal, counsel claims the petitioner 
satisfies this criterion through newspaper articles about his service for the Indian Government in Bahrain in 
EAC 03 044 549 17 
Page 4 
1981. The petitioner initially submitted copies of seven newspaper articles, two of which did not identify the 
source, author or date of the article and four of which were cut off or otherwise illegible. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits the source and date of two articles previously submitted and a partial copy of an additional 
article that is cut off after the fourth paragraph. Hence, the record contains only three legible articles that are 
identified as required by the regulation. 
The articles were published between 198 1 and 1983 in the Gulf Daily News and Arab News. The record 
contains no evidence that GulfDaily News is a nationally or internationally circulated newspaper or a form of 
other major media. A submitted printout from its website indicates that Arab News is an English daily 
newspaper printed in Saudi Arabia and distributed throughout the Middle East, Europe and the United States. 
Yet even if Arab News is a form of major media, the submitted article does not satisfy this criterion. The article 
is entitled "Cardamom Exporters Arrive on Study, Sales Promotion Tour" and quotes the petitioner as the 
"delegation leader Cardamom Board Director." The record does not show that this work in Bahrain was related 
to the petitioner's claimed field of extraordinary ability. Moreover, the submitted articles were published 
between 19 and 21 years prior to the filing of this petition and they do not demonstrate sustained acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedJield of specification for which classijcation is sought. 
On page 9 of his initial brief, counsel claimed the petitioner met this criterion because "[olne of his main 
responsibilities is to review and assess the work of other advisors in the area of budget and treasury 
management, to participate in internal TA advisory committees, as well as the review of IMF program related 
documents and research work done by others." This sentence is repeated verbatim from the letter of the 
petitioner's supervisor at the IMF, Jack Diamond, which was submitted with the petition. However, duties or 
activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate 
national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself, or in a substantial 
proportion of positions within that occupation. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner has judged 
the work of other individuals in his field in a manner significantly outside the general duties of his position and 
reflective of national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the$eld. 
As evidence related to this criterion, the petitioner initially submitted support letters and the newspaper articles 
discussed above under the third criterion. On appeal, the petitioner submits seven additional recommendation 
letters. 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 field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he 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 sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner's field is "highly specialized" and that "the circle of experts 
best able to evaluate [the petitioner's] work is likewise limited." Yet counsel does not explain how the 
allegedly "highly specialized" nature of the petitioner's field prevents his contributions from being documented 
EAC 03 044 5491 7 
Page 5 
through other forms of evidence apart from recommendation letters. Accordingly, we review the letters as they 
relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
Counsel claims the petitioner has made "an outstanding contribution to the development of government 
financial management in Africa" and "has made significant contributions to the budget and treasury 
management in India." The record indicates that the petitioner held various positions in the Indian Civil 
service from 1969 to 199 1. Additional controller General of ~ccounts within the Ministry of 
Finance, Government of India, states that he has known the petitioner since 1977. states, 
"During his distinguished career of 22 years (1969-91) with the Indian Administration, [the petitioner] had a 
meteoric rise and held many important and senior executive positions including Head of Departments." 
ites two of the petitioner's "significant contributions to the budget and treasury management in 
India." First, the petitioner "fram[ed] an analytical document on a broad overview of the fiscal performance 
of India; this was the first presentation of its type and received wide appreciation. Since then, this document 
is being published annually." The record contains an excerpt of a document entitled "Government of India 
ACCOUI% at a Glance 1985-86," which is dated May 198j the Ministry of Finance, 
Department of Expenditure, Controller General of Accounts. that "government 
publications in India are typically issued in the name of even if this document can 
be attributed to the petitioner, the record contains no corroborative evidence of the document's allegedly 
wide appreciation or subsequent annual publication.describes the second contribution made by 
the petitioner in India as a compilation of "the Finance Accounts of Union Government for the year 1988-89 
for timely presentation before Parliament." The record contains no corroborative evidence of this work. 
also states that the petitioner was later "appointed as Director, Trade Promotion" and 
"established a Trade Promotion Centre in Bahrain; his work was widely acknowledged by the press." The - 
newspaper articles regarding the petitioner's work in Bahrain were discussed above under the third criterion. 
The articles do not indicate that the petitioner's work was related to his claimed area of extraordinary ability. 
In addition, the articles date between 19 and 21 years prior to the filing of this petition and do not reflect the 
requisite sustained acclaim. 
professof theollege of Commerce in India further explains that the petitioner was 
"selected for the Indian Civil Service through an All India Examination which is considered one of the - 
toughest and most competitive recruitment system [sic] in the world." ~rofessostates that "[iln 
recognition of his outstanding merit and achievements in his chosen field, [the petitioner] was honored with 
the Most Distinguished Alumni Award by the College in 1994. In 1996 he was admitted to the membership 
of the Academic Advisory Council for the Global Business Operations Programme of Delhi University 
conducted by this college. He made valuable contribution in enhancing the academic profile of this two-year 
graduate programme in International Business." The record contains no corroborative documentation of 
these accomplishments or their significance. The evidence submitted thus does not establish that the 
petitioner's work in India was recognized as making major contributions to his field. 
The record also does not establish that the petitioner's subsequent work at the IMF has made major 
contributions to his field reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. ~irector of the Office 
of Budget and Planning at the IMF, states that the petitioner served as a Budget Advisor to the Government 
of Jamaica in 1991 and later as a Budget and Treasury Advisor to the Governments of Namibia, Malawi and 
Uganda. explains that "[dluring these assignments, [the petitioner] demonstrated a rare capacity 
about the more advanced financial management information systems, with a keen 
EAC 03 044 5491 7 
Page 6 
. appreciation of the pace at which underdeveloped systems could advance. . . . His reputation grew over this - - 
period; and the finance ministers of all of these countries have expressed . . . their deep appreciation of his 
contribution to their development of new systems." further explains that due to the petitioner's 
"ability to bring about meaningful and lasting reform," he was later appointed to work at the IMF - - 
~ead~iarters and is now "well kiown in the field of government financial mana eme t. and is highly valued 
as an expert and as a consultant by other institutions as well as the IMF."  concludes that the 
petitioner "has made an outstanding contribution to the development of government financial management in 
Africa." 
The record contains letters from four overn nt officials praising the petitioner's work as an IMF advisor. 
In a letter dated September 19, 1994- inister of Finance of Jamaica, expresses his gratitude to 
the.petitioner on behalf of the Jama~can government: "1 wish to express our sincere appreciation for the 
service you rendered and for the fine example you have set for the public officers with whom you came in 
contact, in terms of proper work ethics and devotion to duty." The record contains no other documentation of 
the petitioner's work in Jamaica or evidence that his work there made a major contribution to his field. 
Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation for the Government of Malawi, states that he worked 
with the petitioner from 1995 to 1998 when was Minister of Finance. explains that 
with the petitioner's technical assistance, "the Ministry of Finance made significant progress in strengthening 
budget management processes with enhanced government capacity for efficient treasury management. [~hk 
petitioner] played a critical role in the design of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), which 
was used as an important tool to rationalize allocation of national resources and restructure expenditure both 
within and across sectors, in line with our country's established goals towards poverty reduction." 
otes that the petitioner "made invaluable contributions to improving Malawi's treasury and PP lsca 
management systems. As a result of his efforts, the composition and quality of public expenditure 
substantially improved." In a letter dated June 8, 1998who apparently seceded 
as Minister of Finance in Malawi, requests the extension of the petitioner's contract for one year. 
states: 
The Government of Malawi is highly appreciative of- assistance and contribution to 
the budgetary reforms including reviewing and improving the budget process; broadening and 
deepening of the MTEF; establishing expenditure control systems; and directin of the IFMIS 
[Integrated Financial Management Information System]. . . . The services of are 
considered by the Government of Malawi to be very essential for the continued implementation of 
fiscal reforms over the next twelve months. 
Senior Public Sector Specialist for the Africa Region at the World Bank, worked with the 
petitioner in Malawi in 2001 and affirms that the petitioner "help[edl the Government develop a uniaue -- - 
roadmap -which was both simple and straightforward - to navigate the complexities of institutional reforms 
and IT-based solutions to budgeting problems (such as a Government-wide Integrated Financial Management 
Information System) in the public sector." 
The record contains only one document to corroborate the petitioner's work in Malawi. A copy of a 
manuscript entitled "Integrated Financial Management Information System Core Accounting System" 
authored by the petitioner. Although the document discusses the petitioner's work in Malawi, the source and 
EAC 03 044 54917 
Page 7 
date of the paper are not identified. The record is also devoid of any evidence that this manuscript has been 
widely cited by other experts or otherwise recognized as a major contribution to the petitioner's field. 
the petitioner worked for him as a 
as Secretary to the Treasury of the 
Government of Uganda. 
[The petitioner] rendered invaluable services to Uganda. To resolve our problems, he developed a 
unique Expenditure Control Model supported by a comprehensive Commitment Control System 
(CCS). The CCS was designed to control budget commitments and expenditure, and to curtail the 
accumulation of domestic payments arrears. He played a very critical role in the implementation of 
the CCS and in our efforts to control our domestic debt. With his assistance in 1999, the quantum of 
fresh payment arrears was reduced by almost 80% compared to the previous financial year. This 
success is no doubt attributable to [the petitioner's] work. [He] left behind a very credible new 
system for expenditure management which has demonstrated great benefits for both the line 
ministries and the Ministry of Finance. 
P 
f the World Bank met the petitioner in Uganda in 1999 and briefly notes the petitioner's 
pos~t~on as a udget advisor to the Ugandan government, but the record contains no other corroborative 
evidence of the petitioner's work in Uganda. 
In his first letter submitted with the petition,- the petitioner's supervisor and Chief of the 
Public Expenditure Management Division of the IMF Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD), adds that "[olver the 
years [the petitioner] has become an acknowledged expert in expenditure control strategies and procedures, 
ind the techni ues he ioneered . . . are often cited and recommended by the IMF for a number ofits program 
countries." 40tes that the petitioner's IMF reports "attest to the high quality of his work" and 
that his "extensive knowledge combined with many years of experience has also been recognized by the 
World Bank which has relied on his expertise, and often requested his services for their work in parallel 
areas." 
The record does not support statements. On appeal, the petitioner submitted excerpts from 
two manuscripts that cite the petitioner's work or contributions. First, a working paper entitled "How, When 
and Why Does Poverty Get Budget Priority: Poverty Reduction Strategy and Public Expenditure in Ghana," 
published by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in London in April 2002, includes one IMF report 
co-authored by the petitioner in its bibliography. Second, an excerpt from a collaborative report of the Asian 
Development Bank, the IMF and the World Bank, entitled "Lao PDR Public Expenditure Review Country 
Financial Accountability Assessment," was published in June 2002 and cites the petitioner as a contributor to 
the report. The petitioner also submitted an excerpt from another IMF report which cites a manuscript co- 
authored by the petitioner, but we cannot consider this evidence because the citing report is dated 2004, two 
years after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot 
be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. On appeal, the petitioner also submitted copies of electronic mail 
messages concerning his invitation to serve on an ad hoc working group organized by the World Bank, but the 
invitation was made after the petition was filed and cannot be considered. Again, the petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. Id. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a letter from the World Bank to the 
IMF requesting the collaboration of IMF FAD staff on a project in Malawi. On page eight of his appellate brief 
EAC 03 044 549 17 
Page 8 
counsel states that the petitioner "was the FAD Expert selected," but the submitted letter does not mention the 
petitioner. 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 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The record contains excerpts of ten IMF reports written by or co-authored by the petitioner. On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted excerpts from 14 additional IMF reports written or co-authored by him. We cannot 
consider these reports because they are all dated after the petition was filed. Again, the petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a fiture date after the petitioner 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 ten reports 
submitted with the petition, the record contains evidence that one report has been cited once in the 
aforementioned OD1 working paper. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a second letter fromnd six additional letters. Most of 
these letters primarily discuss work completed by the petitioner after the petition was filed or are written by 
individuals who did not meet the petition& or become familiar with his work until after the petition was filed. 
Consequently, these letters cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing.' 
Id. The remaining letters affirm the petitioner's ex ertise, but do not identify any specific, major contributions 
that the petitioner has made to his field. I)Senior Economist at the Japan Bank for International 
Cooperation, states that he met the petitioner in 2000. At that time was working for the World Bank 
and requested the petitioner's assessment of fiscal problems faced by sub-Saharan African countries. - 
states that he "was impressed by the depth of the information [the petitioner] provided and 
ability to know so much about such a large number of countries at the same time.'' Yet ~~~~~~ 
any specific, major contribution that the petitioner has made to his field in this area and the rest ofll 
etter discusses work done by the petitioner after filing. Similarly, lso of the IMF, praises 
the petitioner's skills and expertise, but only discusses specific examples of the petitioner's work completed 
after the petition was filed. 
The record indicates that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to the IMF projects on which he has 
served and is highly regarded by his colleagues and the government officials for whom he worked in Jamaica, 
Malawi and Uganda. However, the record lacks corroborative evidence that the petitioner's contributions have 
made a major impact in his field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. The petitioner 
submitted evidence that one of his co-authored IMF reports has been cited in one working paper and that he took 
part in one collaborative report between the IMF, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. This 
minimal recognition of the petitioner's work in his field is inconsistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accordingly, he 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. 
second letter repeats several portions of the text of his first letter and the only new portions 
of his second letter discuss accomplishments made by the petitioner after the petition was filed.- 
and 111, colleagues of the petitioner at the IMF, praise the petitioner's skills, 
experience and earlier work for the IMF, but they both state that they did not meet the petitioner or become 
familiar with his work until they joined the IMF after the petition was filed. 
EAC 03 044 54917 
Page 9 
As discussed above under the fifth criterion, the record contains excerpts from ten IMF reports written or co- 
authored by the petitioner. Many of the submitted excerpts state that the reports are "strictly confidential" and 
"represent technical advice and recommendations given to the authorities by staff of the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF) in response to their request for technical assistance." Hence, the petitioner's reports were printed 
by the IMF for internal use. The manuscripts were not published in professional, major trade publications or 
other major media and consequently do not meet this criterion. 
In his second letter states that "[all1 of these reports . . . are very much comparable to similar 
works published in academic journals.'assessment of the caliber of the petitioner's work may 
be accurate, but the record does not establish that his work has been published and hence disseminated to his 
field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel contends that the 
petitioner's IMF reports "are the functional equivalent of scholarly articles published in professional journals" 
and that the IMF7s internal printing of the reports is equivalent to publication in "other major media." Yet, 
counsel acknowledges that the IMF reports are confidential. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the 
petitioner's position at the IMF prevented him from publishing articles in professional journals or other major 
media. In fact, the resumes of three of the petitioner's IMF colleagues submitted on appeal, including that of 
Dist their scholarly publications in academic journals. 
Even if we considered the petitioner's IMF reports as publications, they would not meet this criterion because 
the record does not establish that his papers have been extensively cited or otherwise acknowledged by other 
experts in his field in a manner consistent with sustained acclaim. The record contains evidence of just one 
citation of one IMF report co-authored by the petitioner. The citing article is captioned, "Working Paper 164 
Results of OD1 research presented in preliminary form for discussion and critical comment." This one citation of 
one of the petitioner's co-authored reports in another internal working paper does not demonstrate that the 
petitioner's manuscripts have been significantly recognized in his field. 
The record does not show that the petitioner's reports have been consistently cited by other experts in his field or 
published in professional, major trade publications or other major media. Accordingly, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that hme a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization itself. 
In this case, the petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion through his various positions with both the 
Indian Civil Service and the IMF. As discussed above under the fifth criterion, the petitioner worked for various 
ministries of the Government of India from 1969 to 1991. Yet the record does not corroborate his alleged 
leading or critical role in any of those former positions. ~rofessormotes the petitioner's "success in all 
the important assignments that he completed for the Govt. of India," but does not describe any particular 
assignment in which the petitioner played a leading or critical role for the Indian government as a whole or 
for any of the particular ministries in which he served. 
EAC 03 044 5491 7 
Page 10 
states that "[als Controller of Accounts, Delhi Administration, [the] petitioner managed the 
treasurv and supervised the work of thirty Accounts Officers and a large number of Accountants. . . . In 1990, 
he ros; to the position of Joint controller General of Accounts, ~inisb of Finance, which is the third highest 
level in the department and a part of the top financial management team of the Ministry of Finance." While the 
petitioner may have held positions of great responsibility, the record contains no evidence to corroborate 
statements or demonstrate the leading or critical nature of any of the petitioner's former positions 
with the Indian Civil Service. Finally, as discussed under the third criterion, the newspaper articles concerning 
the petitioner's work for the Indian government in Bahrain indicate that the petitioner held a position unrelated 
to his current field of purported extraordinary ability. In addition, the articles were published 19 and 21 years 
prior to filing and are inconsistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Although the IMF has a distinpished reputation, the record does not establish that the department in which the 
petitioner works, the FAD, has a similarly distinguished reputation independent of the IMF at large. In addition, 
the record fails to document the leading or critical nature of the petitioner's position at the IMF. As evidence of 
the petitioner's allegedly leading or critical role, counsel on appeal cites only the petitioner's recommendation 
letters and his invitation to serve on an ad hoc working group organized by the World Bank. As discussed under 
the fifth criterion, many of the recommendation letters discuss work done by the petitioner after the petition was 
filed or were written by individuals who did not become familiar with the work of the petitioner until after the 
petition was filed. The petitioner's invitation from the World Bank also occurred after the petition was filed. 
Accordingly, this evidence cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The recommendation letters submitted with the petition praise the petitioner's skills, knowledge and expertise 
and describe his valuable work on various IMF projects. Yet none of the letters indicate that the petitioner 
occupies a leading or critical role for the IMF as a whole or for the FAD in particular. On appeal, the petitioner 
submitted a printout from the IMF7s website that states that in fiscal vear 2004, the IMF provided 367 technical 
assistants to- member countries. In his second letter,escribes the peti;ioner as having "very 
unique skills and extensive experience in a highly specialized area. This has proved invaluable for the work of 
this department." The record does not corroborat escription. The majority of the petitioner's 
IMF reports are co-authored (with -.s) and the record does not demonstrate how 
the petitioner's role substantively differs from that of any of the other 367 TAs employed by IMF. Hence, the 
record does not establish that the petitioner holds a leading or critical role for the IMF that is-consistent with the 
requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the IMF listing his annual earnings from 1998 to 2001. His highest salary, 
$236,298.38, was earned in 1999, four years before the petition was filed. In 2001, the petitioner's salary was 
$146,919.36. The petitioner also submitted an advertisement published in 2002 in The Economist for "Budget 
Policy and Treasury Advisors" with the U.S. Department of Treasury. The advertisement lists the salary range 
for these positions as between $85,000 and $130,000. Yet, the required qualifications for this position are well 
below that of the petitioner. The advertisement states that a "Master's degree . . . is preferred" and that prior 
overseas experience and foreign language proficiency are "distinct advantages." The petitioner has a Masters 
Degree, was certified as an accountant in India, speaks several Indian languages in addition to English and has 
EAC 03 044 549 17 
Page 11 
worked in other countries for over a decade. Moreover, counsel did not explain how, and the record does not 
document that, the IMF pay scale is comparable to that of the U.S. government. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that his current gross income is $228,570. We cannot consider this 
evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. On appeal, counsel also cites 13 
announcements for jobs allegedly comparable to the petitioner's position. This evidence is not probative. Ten 
of these positions require only a bachelor's degree and twelve of the jobs require substantially less experience 
than that acquired by the petitioner. Twelve of the jobs also describe work that, while nominally related to 
"finance" and "budgets," is substantively different from that done by the petitioner for the IMF. The only job 
that might be comparable to the petitioner's position is a financial specialist for the U.S. Department of Treasury 
at the 14 and 15 General Schedule (GS) level with a salary range of $85,210 to $130,305. Yet again, counsel 
does not explain and the record does not document that the U.S. government GS pay scale is comparable to that 
of the IMF. Moreover, the record contains no evidence, for example, that the petitioner's salary is significantly 
higher than individuals similarly employed by the World Bank, the United Nations or other international 
organizations. Hence, the petitioner submitted no evidence that his salary at the time of filing was significantly 
higher than that of other individuals similarly employed in his field or comparable to such experts at the very top 
of his field. Accordingly, he 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. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), 
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 petitioner has made valuable contributions to the field of budget policy and treasury 
management for developing countries as a TA advisor for the IMF. However, the record does not establish that 
at the time of filing the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the 
very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A). 
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.