dismissed EB-1A Case: Human Resources / Investment Banking

US. Department of Homeland Security 
idzEc@ins d.3;ta ?.'.;€:& :!3 
 U.S Citizenship and Immigration Sewlces 
)r 1 
prevdyrc12v*!.!-::,-:<~?T:'f-~ 
O!ce Washington, ofAdmrnrstratrve DC 20529-2090 Appeals MS 2090 
kAqJ2;iJy of Zw. ;>"ii pl:. 2:) 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
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 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 
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 a 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner, an investment banking and financial services company, seeks to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
business. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has earned 
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 beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3) and that the petitioner submitted comparable evidence of her extraordinary ability 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
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. 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. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
Page 3 
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 August 16, 2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability "as a Human Resources Professional of Extraordinary Ability in the field of 
Human Resources and Recruiting within the Investment Banking Industry." 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 the beneficiary's eligibility for 
this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary 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).' 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing the beneficiary's work as a human 
resource professional. 
states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 1999, when I hired her. At the time I was Regional 
Head of Europe Human Resources for Credit Suisse First Boston and I hired [the beneficiary] 
as the Head of Staffing for all Europe businesses. [The beneficiary's] efforts in overseeing 
the Staffing function and her demonstrated extraordinary ability in sourcing, assessing and 
hiring candidates for senior level positions made her an extremely valuable member of the 
European team. 
Among the major contributions of [the beneficiary] was developing an interviewer training 
initiative across the European offices (22 in total with over 5000 employees), developing a 
vendor management program which saved the Firm almost $2,000,000 USD per annum, 
sourcing and hiring over 100 employees across the locations of Europe and providing 
coaching and counseling to senior executives on the selection and assessment of candidates. 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
In his letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, states: 
From my first dealings with [the beneficiary] when I hired her in 1999 onto my Europe HR 
Staff while with Credit Suisse in London through my recent interactions with her in her 
current leadership role with Macquarie, [the beneficiary] continues to provide a level of 
thought and transactional leadership within HR that is unparalleled. [The beneficiary's] 
contributions to the field of human resources within the investment banking industry have 
challenged the status quo. In particular her creation of a [sic] Employment Vendor 
Management program for the Europe Businesses during her tenure within Credit Suisse, 
London continues to be used to this day (almost 10 years ago) and has yielded significant 
savings for the Firm. The creation of a strategy, a set of tactics, and the creation of a process 
relative to the Vendor Management program reflected [the beneficiary's] ability to go "top to 
bottom" in her thinking and approach. . . . This Vendor Management effort combined with 
[the beneficiary's] work at the time on an Interviewer Training Program - components of 
which are still in use today (again, almost 10 years later) - had deep and sustained impact on 
the 6000 employee business that was Credit Suisse Europe. 
While the beneficiary's development of an interviewer training program and an employment vendor 
management program helped to benefit Credit Suisse's business operations, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that these programs constitute original contributions of major significance in the 
beneficiary's field. For example, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's two programs 
have impacted the human resources industry beyond her former employer. 
ead of Talent Management, Infrastructure Division, Morgan Stanley, states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 2000 when I joined Credit Suisse First Boston's HR 
department, as the Head of HR Strategy for the Infiastructure Division; [the beneficiary] was 
in charge of global Resourcing for that same Division. We interacted particularly closely on 
two initiatives: firstly, the integration of and where she 
was responsible for the redeployment of those people displaced from roles due to overlap of 
functions or elimination of certain lines of business. Secondly, on an in-depth review of 
Recruitment suppliers and methods of recruitment. 
 In both of these initiatives, [the 
beneficiary] brought an approach to the business issue that was innovative and far ahead of 
the norms for the industry at the time. For example, in relation to the DLJ acquisition, [the 
beneficiary] pioneered the use of web-technology for internal job posting and candidate 
sourcing. This, whilst common today, was revolutionary in Financial services at the time, 
particularly for "internal" job postings. In relation to the Recruitment suppliers1 
methodologies, [the beneficiary's] unusual breadth of experience across Lateral recruitment, 
Executive Search, Contingent staffing and Campus Recruitment, meant that she could drive a 
holistic approach to addressing 'workforce planning' in its entirety. . . . As a direct result of 
[the beneficiary's] ability to drive this approach, the strategic decision focused on two clearly 
differentiated operating models, one "high touch" with significant interaction between the 
team managing the recruitment and the recruiting manager, and one 'high volume' where the 
modus operandi was to source multiple people with similar skills for similar roles. 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary performed admirably in reviewing and improving Credit 
Suisse First Boston's internal recruitment process, but there is no evidence showing that her work 
had major significance in the field. 
With regard to the DLJ acquisition, , Human Resources, 
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) Greenwich Capital, Connecticut, also discusses the beneficiary's use 
of web-technology for internal job posting and candidate sourcing. states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 2000 when she was in charge of the global resourcing 
work stream for Credit Suisse First Boston during its acquisition and integration of 
- and 
 I was a consultant to DLJ responsible for its U.S. integration 
work stream. . . . Not only was [the beneficiary] responsible for the recruiting process for the 
retained staff and the internal redeployment of those displaced from roles but retained on 
staff, she was also responsible for the job search support to be made available to the 
departing staff. Although the use of web portals is commonplace today, in 2000, it was 
highly unusual for a former employee to be able to access an internal job posting website 
through which to continue conducting a job search at CSFB [Credit Suisse First Boston]. 
The benefit to the firm was two-fold: first, departing employees felt they were being 
accorded a benefit as a result of their loyal service to DLJ or CSFB that put them several 
days ahead of their competition who were learning about CSFB job openings through the 
public internet postings; second, although the portal created an incentive for employees to go 
onsite to the outplacement firm to view the CSFB intranet site, while there, the employees 
also took advantage of the full suite of outplacement services available to them. 
While the beneficiary's utilization of web-technology for internal job posting and candidate sourcing 
was beneficial to CSFB and DLJ's displaced employees, there is no evidence showing that this 
technology was the beneficiary's original innovation or that her implementation of the internal 
website at CSFB was tantamount to a contribution of major significance in the human resources 
field. 
I have also had other opportunities to work directly with [the beneficiary] in the field of 
Human Resources. In 2004 [the beneficiary] was asked by RBS to take on the role of Global 
Head of Human Resources, Financial Markets. . . . [The beneficiary] retained my services as 
an interim senior HR professional to head up the US operation while she underwent a 
staffing and structural review. During my time supporting [the beneficiary] one of the key 
Page 6 
initiatives she developed was the design and development of a global leadership development 
program. 
The program's focus was on two core components: people management and leadership 
(including individual leadership and strategy). The leadership component was heavily 
tailored to the top cadre of senior staff identified by the senior executive team and included 
the use of 360 degree feedback and personal coaching to identify the person's most effective 
personal leadership style in setting and driving corporate strategy. RBS continues to partner 
with London Business School, a pre-eminent business school in the UK (equivalent to 
Columbia Business School in the US), to deliver this program. 
When I rejoined RBS Human Resources in 2006 following the restructure of its Financial 
Markets and Corporate Banking businesses in Global Banking & Markets I was delighted, 
but not surprised, to see that this leadership development program formed the cornerstone of 
the newly branded program being rolled out for the new business. This program, now called 
The Winning Margin, continues to be a key development activity for RBS Global Banking & 
Markets available only to the "Top 250" key individuals by invitation only. 
implementation of a leadership development program at RBS stating: 
The Global Markets division of RBS was formed following a restructure of various different 
businesses within RBS. One of those businesses was RBS' Financial Markets division, of 
which [the beneficiary] had previously held the role of Head of HR. 
During her time as Head of HR, RBS Financial Markets, [the beneficiary] pioneered a 
leadership development program for the top performing staff identified as potential future 
leaders in RBS Financial Markets. After the restructure which formed RBS Global Markets 
this program was continued under the name of The Winning Margin. This program was and 
still is a critical component of RBS GBM' [Global Banking & Markets] leadership skills 
development for its senior executives - participation is by invitation only and is strictly 
restricted to the top 250 most critical staff in the Global Banking & Markets division. 
a human resources consultant contracted by Macquarie Holdings (USA), states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since November 1997 when I began my association with 
Macquarie Holdings USA. 
[The beneficiary's] work at the Royal Bank of Scotland to jointly develop a professional 
development program for traders and their staffs in conjunction with the London Business 
Page 7 
School is particularly noteworthy. 
 It was designed to ensure that individuals obtain 
additional skills while limiting their time off of the trading floor. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an invitation for a 
September 2008 session of the RBS' Winning Margin Program at the London Business School. 
While this invitation indicates that the program developed by the beneficiary continues to provide 
training for RBS' Global Banking & Markets division senior executives, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the beneficiary's work with regard to this company training program equates to 
an original contribution of major significance in her field. 
- Human Resources, Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc., 
served as a human resources consultant to Macquarie Holdings (USA) in 2008. Ms. states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] personally since 2007 . . . . [The beneficiary's] introduction 
of an on site outsourcing model for the industry was a first and the overall success has driven 
similar strategies for other firms. She defined the baseline platform and best practices for 
success and cost efficiency for this function. The use of technology in tracking candidates 
globally and sharing this information across regions as well as standardizing search fee 
arrangements with global providers was very innovative. [The beneficiary's] ability to work 
across cultures and time zones is a tribute to her deep understanding of the diverse global 
investment banking industry and markets. 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 1996 when she was the Head of Resourcing at Bankers 
Trust in London and I was the Corporate Account Director for Robert Walters Associates. 
[The beneficiary] was holding a particularly difficult position that demanded very strong 
influencing skills, a commercial mind and an ability to engage external suppliers to ensure 
service was in turn maximized for the internal client. What was more significant was [the 
beneficiary] was tasked in relation to implementing and developing one of the first 
outsourced recruitment models in London, where the recruitment industry, line management 
and to a degree Human Resources all had differing concerns over this innovative approach to 
delivering talent. [The beneficiary] demonstrated then as she has continued to do so 
throughout her career, a truly entrepreneurial approach to product development, an acute and 
innate understanding of market dynamics and an intellect and character which she applies to 
simply 'getting the job done.' 
Interim Head of HR, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, Macquarie Group Services 
Australia Pty Limited, previously served as Director of Human Resources for Credit Suisse. Ms. 
Page 8 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 1999 during a period when we both worked at Credit 
Suisse. . . . [The beneficiary] and I were both senior members of the European HR 
management team. 
[The beneficiary's] contributions to the field of human resources within the investment 
banking industry have challenged the status quo. Whilst at Credit Suisse [the beneficiary] 
devised and implemented a new recruitment strategy across the entire back office of the bank 
globally at a time of significant growth and a major acquisition. She was responsible for 
implementing a new technology platform for recruitment as well as re-engineering 
recruitment processes to create consistency and efficiencies across the integrated business 
following the acquisition of DLJ in 2000. At that time, outsourcing recruitment was still 
relatively uncommon in investment banking, so [the beneficiary's] success placed Credit 
Suisse at the cutting edge of recruitment strategy and gained the organization advantage in 
the market. 
beneficiary was tasked to develop and implement Credit Suisse's outsourced recruitment model. Ms. 
letter states that outsourcing recruitment was "relatively uncommon in investment banking" in 
2000, but there is no supporting evidence showing that the beneficiary was the first in her industry to 
utilize such an approach. Further, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's outsourcing 
model has attracted significant attention beyond those with whom she has worked in a manner 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that the outsourcing strategy developed by the beneficiary for Credit Suisse was 
tantamount to an original contribution of major significance in her field. 
further states: 
Prior to her time at Credit Suisse, [the beneficiary] worked at Lehmans, where she initiated 
an Investment Banking Recruitment Forum, involving representatives from all the major tier 
1 banks in the London market. That forum resulted in a significant increase in the openness 
with which recruitment issues were discussed across the industry and still exists today. 
beneficiary's involvement with the Investment Banking Recruitment Forum, 
Senior Vice President and Staffing Executive for Bank of America, New York, 
states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 1998 at which time she was the head of Resourcing for 
the Finance, Administration and Operations division of Credit Suisse First Boston. I was a 
recruiter working through and [sic] outsourced provider in the company's operations division. 
[The beneficiary] and I have known each other ever since and she was my manager during 
3.5 years when we both worked for The Royal Bank of Scotland. 
[The beneficiary's] contributions to the field of human resources and recruiting have made 
her an HR professional of international renown within the investment banking industry. One 
significant contribution [the beneficiary] has made to the industry is a founding member of 
the Investment Banking Recruiters Forum. Established in 1996, the forum brings together 
recruiting professionals from the most significant industry companies to discuss in a 
confidential setting the notable things that effect the profession such as market trends, 
legislation, processes, suppliers and technologies. . . . [The beneficiary] was instrumental in 
setting this forum up and it is still in existence today. I represented both The Royal Bank of 
Scotland and Bank of America at the forum when I held head of recruiting positions and can 
testify to the lasting importance of the initiative that [the beneficiary] played a significant 
role in starting. 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 1999 when she took on the role of managing a 
significant cost reduction and recruitment supplier review program for Credit Suisse First 
Boston, based in London. Prior to this I had known of [the beneficiary] through market 
reputation and was aware of her work at Lehman Brothers - specifically that she had 
established the Investment Bankers Recruitment Forum that had then begun to have an 
impact in the recruiting market in London. The establishment of this forum significantly 
changed the status quo of how the very specialized and closed-door recruiting market in 
London operated, giving more leverage and 'purchaser-power' to the various investment 
banks that were the clients of the search firms. While the forum was not initially welcomed 
by all search firms in the market, those of us seeking to ensure the profession remained 
respected and viewed as a profession and a valued service recognized, as [the beneficiary] 
clearly visioned, the benefits to all parties of a collaborative body that could act as one 
communication channel and forum, in addition to being a useful information sharing body. I, 
and many others, applauded [the beneficiary's] vision and drive creating such an original and 
extraordinary tool and I am pleased to see that it has become embedded in the current market 
almost 10 years later. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a non-executed copy of a 
December 4, 2007 "Mutual Confidentiality Agreement" for this forum indicating that it was limited 
to investment banking companies having offices in London. Further, the letter from - 
indicates that the forum consisted of "banks in the London market." Similarly, the letter from Ms. 
noted that the forum had "an impact in the recruiting market in London." There is no 
evidence showing that this forum impacted the human resources field beyond the local participating 
offices in the London area. Further, while the preceding witnesses claim that the beneficiary was a 
founding member of the Investment Banking Recruiters Forum, there is no contemporaneous 
evidence showing her involvement or confirming that she was the driving force that originated the 
forum. In this instance, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's work to establish this 
local forum equates to an original contribution of major significance in the human resources field, 
Page 10 
During her tenure at Credit Suisse First Boston [the beneficiary] pioneered the concept of 
'Supplier Evenings' - a unique opportunity for senior managers to interact with recruitment 
suppliers and educate them with regard to the business, its strategy and future recruitment 
needs. [The beneficiary's] initiative resulted in far more effective working relationships, 
enabling recruitment suppliers to market the organization far more effectively, thereby giving 
the organization a stronger 'brand' not only with the suppliers but also with the target 
workforce population they then reach out to on behalf of the company. 
While the beneficiary's "Supplier Evenings" concept is credited with bolstering relationships 
between CSFB's senior managers and the company's recruiting suppliers, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that it constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. For 
example, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's concept has impacted the recruiting 
industry beyond her former employer and its suppliers. 
Managing Director and Head of Rates North America, RBS Greenwich Capital, 
Connecticut, states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 2001 when she joined RBS Corporate Banking and 
Financial Markets (CBFM) as the Head of Resourcing. Although she was physically based 
in London, [the beneficiary] was responsible for supporting the recruitment activity of all 
business managers globally. 
When I undertook the process of searching in the market for individuals, I turned to [the 
beneficiary] and her team to assist me in the process. I was immediately struck by the unique 
level of insight and knowledge of the external recruitment market that [the beneficiary] was 
able to bring to the table. Her ability to engage with the suppliers from a position of mutual 
respect and understanding of the market in which they would be partnering and working was 
in a completely different league to that I had experienced from other HR staff. 
I was able to successfully recruit a team of 12 highly specialized individuals in the face of 
stiff market competition - as a result of which the team that year delivered $97 million 
dollars in revenue for RBS. I have no doubt that without [the beneficiary's] unique abilities 
in the recruitment field we would have struggled to convince the best recruitment suppliers to 
work with us to attract top quality candidates, and that we would have struggled to attract 
those candidates so convincingly without [the beneficiary's] exceptionally skilled and expert 
oversight of the process. I know that I am just one of many internal clients of [the 
beneficiary's] who have benefited from her expertise . . . . 
Page 11 
While the beneficiary's knowledge of the external recruitment market has assisted RBS in recruiting 
qualified individuals, there is no evidence demonstrating that her work constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in her field. For example, there is no evidence showing that her 
work has impacted the human resources industry beyond her former employer. 
I have known [the beneficiarvl since 1996 and have watched her career accelerate auicklv as 
first Lehman Brothers, then &edit Suisse, RBS and latterly recognized ier unique 
abilities. The Investment Banks are uncomprising [sic] and to succeed, flourish and advance 
rapidly you need an uncommon mix of tenacity, skill and commercial awareness. For an [sic] 
senior HR professional [the beneficiary] possess [siclthis very uncommon mix. 
Specifically, when she was working at Lehman Brothers, [the beneficiary] pioneered the use 
of an external recruitment company to perform in house recruitment functions for an 
investment bank. This was a significant break from the traditional recruitment model that 
had previously been applied at investment banking, namely reliance on internal recruiters to 
perform this function. In this context [the beneficiary] lead a change to the business model 
of both Investment Banks and external recruitment companies in respect of the sourcing and 
placement of personnel. This model is now commonplace in the investment banking industry. 
Indeed operate [sic] this model in North America. 
We are not persuaded that seeking an outside contractor to perform in-house business functions 
(such as recruitment) is an original business practice attributable to the beneficiary. There is no 
supporting evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary's utilization of an external recruitment 
company to perform in house recruitment functions for Lehman Brothers equates to an original 
contribution of major significance in her field. 
states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 2002 at which time I was introduced to her in regard to 
a search assignment. I was hired by [the beneficiary] & Royal Bank of Scotland to conduct a 
search for a senior Human Resources professional to run HR for the Americas. [The 
beneficiary] showed to me during the course of that search, her in-depth knowledge of 
Human Resources Globally, Financial Services expertise (not just in HR but truly 
understanding the business) and her ability to translate HR processes across borders. She 
garnered great support and credibility on both sides of "the Pond." 
[The beneficiary's] contributions to the field of human resources within the investment 
banking industry have challenged the status quo. [The beneficiary] has a background that is 
extremely difficult to find within the US which is as follows: her knowledge of global 
financial services both from the headquarters perspective and on the ground within the US. 
Her experience working in London has helped [the beneficiary] to understand and interpret 
the differences between the two business cultures and what that means to an employee 
population. Her HR skills are top notch. She is creative in her approach to problem solving 
and always employs practical solutions with keeping home office objectives in mind. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of the preceding recommendation letters from the 
beneficiary's colleagues praising her human resources expertise and discussing. her activities in the 
field. Success and effectiveness in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original 
business-related contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the 
beneficiary has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted 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. While the beneficiary has earned the admiration of 
those with whom she has worked, the record lacks evidence showing that her work constitutes 
original contributions of major significance in her field consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the beneficiary's 
influence on others in her field nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has 
significantly changed as a result of her work. 
In this case, the recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of 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 fiom the beneficiary's 
professional contacts is 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 beneficiary's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of a human resources professional who 
has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
beneficiary's work has been unusually influential or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The record includes internet documentation and rankings fiom Vault.com Inc. showing that the 
Macquarie Group, Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse, and RBS have distinguished reputations in 
commercial and investment banlung. The documentation is, of course, dated prior to September 15, 
2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection. 
The petitioner submitted a July 1 1, 2007 e-mail from 
 of Oakleaf 
Partnership Limited, a human resources specific search & selection business in London, stating: 
I have been asked to comment on the recruitment process for the senior-most human 
resources position with Macquarie Holdings (USA) Inc. in the United States and on the 
background and abilities of the candidate identified and selected, [the beneficiary]. 
I was approached by 
 Division Director with Macquarie Bank Limited, 
the global parent of Macquarie Holdings (USA) Inc. about the role. He laid out the required 
criteria for the candidate as follows: the company wanted a premier executive-level human 
resources candidate to direct the recruiting and human resources functions for Macquarie 
Bank Limited's operations in both North America and Europe. The company required a 
candidate with in-depth experience across both regions but more importantly, given 
Macquarie Bank Limited's expansion plans in North America and Europe, it was absolutely 
essential that the candidate possess extensive experience and expertise in both resourcing and 
generalist human resources functions. There are very few professionals in the world who 
possess this combination of experience and expertise within the financial services industry. 
The petitioner also submitted an August 6, 2007 letter fkom 
 Generalist, 
Macquarie Holdings (USA) Inc., confirming the company's offer to the beneficiary for the position of 
~ivision Director - Head of Human ~esokces, &ericas/Europe, Middle ~ast, and ~frica. The 
record, however, does not include a discussion of the beneficiary's work and achievements for 
Macquarie Holdings (USA) Inc. demonstratin that she performed in a leadin or critical role for the 
company. Further, while the e-mail from g and the letter from 
 indicate that 
the beneficiary was selected to fill the preceding position, there is no information regarding her 
actual start date. According to the beneficiary's Form G-325A, Biographic Information, she was 
working for RBS Greenwich Capital Markets as of the date of her signature on the form, August 15, 
2007. The petition in this matter was filed on August 16, 2007. In this instance, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary had performed in a leading or critical role for Macquarie 
Holdings (USA) Inc. as of the filing date. A petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5s 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Commr. 1971). 
In an August 15, 2007 letter accompanying the petition, states that the beneficiary 
worked for Lehrnan Brothers in the late 1990s serving in the positions of "Manager, Temporary 
Resources and Recruiting, Europe," "Special Projects Manager," and "Freelance Recruiting 
Specialist." According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(g), evidence of qualifLing experience 
"shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) . . . and shall include the name, 
address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien." The 
record, however, does not include a letter from Lehman Brothers discussing the leading or critical 
nature of the beneficiary's role for that company. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Califarnia, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). There is no evidence in the record differentiating the 
Page 14 
beneficiary's roles at Lehman Brothers from those of the other human resources executives employed 
by that company. 
An undated letter from 
 the beneficiary's former superior who served as Regional Head 
of Europe Human Resources for CSFB and who hired the beneficiary as the "Head of Staffing for all 
Europe businesses," states: 
[The beneficiary] has had a leading and critical role at both Credit Suisse and RBS. At 
Credit Suisse, her role as well as the programs, policies and procedures she created required 
her to be a highly visible senior leader at the Firm and she was able to easily interact with a 
variety of senior leaders in a multiple number of countries. Her efforts around that most 
critical aspect of a Firm's efforts - the obtaining of human capital through recruiting - 
meant that [the beneficiary] was at the very forefront of that most important effort across 
multiple countries and multiple businesses. 
, the beneficiary's former subordinate at RBS, states: 
At The Royal Bank of Scotland where we both worked, [the beneficiary] had a leading and 
critical role in building the company's recruiting capability at an important time in the 
company's growth. At a time when recruiting was amongst the highest listed items on the 
company's Human Resources agenda, she led the redesign of the organizational structure of 
the group, recruitment policies and processes, technologies employed by the company and its 
vendor management procedures. 
indicates that the beneficiary served as Head of HR for RBS Financial Markets division, but his 
letter focuses primarily on the beneficiary's implementation of the Winning Margin leadership 
development program rather than the beneficiary's leading or critical role for RBS. 
discussed under the preceding criterion indicate that the beneficiary performed admirably on various 
human resources initiatives for CSFB and RBS, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does 
not establish that the beneficiary's positions were leading or critical to these companies as a whole. 
For example, the record does not include a letter of support originating from Credit Suisse's corporate 
headquarters discussing the nature of the beneficiary's duties and the importance of her role to the 
company's operations. Further, the petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other 
similar evidence showing the beneficiary's position in relation to that of the other HR executives 
employed by Credit Suisse and RBS. There is no evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary's roles 
differentiated her from the other HR managers who oversaw the companies' regional offices or 
divisions, let alone the companies' top executives. In this case, the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary was responsible for RBS or Credit Suisse's success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's 
Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, for Royal Bank of Scotland North America Services Inc. and 
Macquarie Holdings USA Inc. reflecting total compensation of $763,030.39 in 2007. The petitioner 
also submitted salary and wage information for 2007 showing that the beneficiary's earnings are 
significantly high in relation to others in her field. Accordingly, we concur with the director's 
finding that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the beneficiary meets only one regulatory criterion, three of which are 
required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). We concur with the director's finding that 
the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's 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 beneficiary 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(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the reference letters from the beneficiary's colleagues are comparable 
evidence of her extraordinary ability as a human resources professional. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." In that regard, counsel argues that the petitioner 
established eligibility to submit comparable evidence by virtue of "the confidentiality agreements 
Beneficiary executed with her former employers and the proprietary nature of the Beneficiary's work 
product. " Counsel further states: 
In its timely response to the WE, the Petitioner, through its Counsel, explained at length that 
as a result of the confidential nature of human resources and recruiting in the investment 
banking field, the Beneficiary was prohibited by confidentiality agreements with her former 
employers from disclosing and/or producing proprietary informationlmaterials detailing, 
disclosing andlor referencing the cutting edge recruitment and executive training and 
leadership programs the beneficiary created for her previous employers. In lieu of such 
confidential and proprietary information, Petitioner submitted a copy of a participant 
confidentiality agreement and a letter from Austin Dowling . . . attesting to the confidential 
and proprietary nature of the Beneficiary's programs and of the prohibition with these 
confidentiality agreements barring the Beneficiary and others from divulging such 
information. 
The letter from 
 Associate Director 1 Head of Employee Relations, Macquarie 
Holdings (USA) Inc., New York, states: 
Executive training and leadership development tools, such as [the beneficiary's] The Winning 
Margin and the Investment Bank Recruiters Forum have been designated confidential and 
proprietary information and bank officers are not authorized to release information regarding 
these programs in the context of this application. Consequently, we are forced to rely on the 
testimony of [the beneficiary's] peers to demonstrate the significance of her contributions - 
indeed, participation in several of her programs is now mandatory. 
We hope you will consider the unique nature of the investment banking field and give 
appropriate weight to the testimony . . . . 
The "cutting edge recruitment and executive training adleadership programs" described by counsel 
and identified in letter as "The Winning Margin and the Investment Bank Recruiters 
Forum" have already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
While the December 4, 2007 "Mutual Confidentiality Agreement" shows the confidential nature of 
material originating from the forum, the testimony relating to the impact of the forum has been duly 
considered. Even if the petitioner were to have submitted the internal proprietary and confidential 
information for the beneficiary's programs, there is no evidence demonstrating that any of them are 
tantamount to original "business-related contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis 
added.] 
Counsel's brief and the letter from do not specifically address why the remaining 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). For example, we note that the petitioner submitted an article in Business 
Week that discusses the recruitment efforts of human resources executive - Thus, 
there is no indication that the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) does not apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation. The Business Week article only reinforces the conclusion that other 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) apply to the beneficiary's field. Further, we cannot 
ignore that counsel has specifically argued that the beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii), and (ix). In this case, the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4) precludes the consideration of comparable evidence, as there is no indication that 
eligibility for visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 
specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three 
of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, the reference letters submitted in support of this petition have already been addressed 
under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii). There is no evidence showing 
that the reference letters that the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as comparable evidence 
constitute achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of the beneficiary's field. While reference letters may provide useful information about 
an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute 
for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and 
regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained 
Page 17 
national or international acclaim and recognized achievements in the field. 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). The commentary 
for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very 
high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the 
petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far 
greater probative value than the opinions expressed by one's professional acquaintances. 
We cannot ignore that all of the individuals offering letters of support have professional ties to the 
beneficiary. With regard to the opinions of individuals who have worked with the beneficiary, the 
source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand 
evidence that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim for her achievements 
outside of those who are close to her. The statutory and regulatory requirement for "extensive 
documentation'' of "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition 
beyond direct acquaintances of the beneficiary. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
fj 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, counsel fails to explain how the beneficiary 
was purportedly able to achieve sustained national or international acclaim if much of her work 
consisted of closely held proprietary and confidential material. We note that the burden of proof is on 
the petitioner to submit evidence to support its claims. 
Section 291 of the Act provides: 
Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United States, the burden of 
proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to receive such visa or such 
document, or is not inadmissible under any provision of this Act, and, if an alien, that he is 
entitled to the nonimmigrant; immigrant, special immigrant, immediate relative, or refugee 
status claimed, as the case may be. 
The law goes on to assert that the evidence must establish eligibility "to the satisfaction" of the 
adjudicating officer. This burden is confinned in Matter of Soo Hoo, 1 1 I&N Dec. 15 1 (BIA 1965) and 
Matter ofBrantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner cannot avoid this burden simply by 
asserting that certain evidence exists, but cannot be obtained or submitted because of its proprietary 
or confidential nature. If knowledge of the beneficiary's work is deliberately restricted, then by 
definition national or international acclaim is virtually impossible. 
Counsel's contention that reference letters are a comparable substitute for "extensive documentation" 
of achievements and recognition as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) is not supported by a plain reading of the statute, the regulations, or 
standing precedent. The regulations governing the extraordinary ability immigrant visa classification 
have no requirement mandating that USCIS specifically accept the credibility of personal testimony, 
even if not corroborated. The regulations provide that eligibility may be established through a one-time 
achievement or through documentation meeting at least three of ten criteria. The criteria require 
specific documentation beyond mere testimony, such as awards, published material about the alien, and 
a high salary. As an example of the specific name of the documentation required, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires the "title, date and author" of the published material about the alien. 
The only criterion for which letters are specifically relevant is the criterion relating to the alien's leading 
or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(viii). The 
first issue is the role the alien was hired to fill. According to 8 C.F.R. $204.5(g) letters from employers 
are acceptable evidence of experience.' While letters may place the evidence for the other regulatory 
criteria in context, they cannot serve as primary evidence of the achievement required by each criterion. 
Further, while the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(4) permits "comparable evidence" where the ten 
criteria do not "readily apply" to the alien's occupation, the regulation neither states nor implies that 
opinion letters attesting to the alien's accomplishments in the field are "comparable" to the strict 
documentation requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten criteria. Accordingly, we cannot 
conclude that the opinion letters submitted by the beneficiary's current and former colleagues are 
comparable to the types of achievements and recognition required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, where the regulations require specific evidence in support of a petition, the 
petitioner's burden of proof is not satisfied by submitting unsupported testimony. Accordingly, the 
AAO gives the submitted letters less weight and finds them unpersuasive on the whole. Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 791. 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished 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 
beneficiary's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. tj 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 
 We note, however, that an alien would also need to submit objective evidence of the reputation of the employer to satisfy 
the specific requirement of 8 C.F.R. 
 204,5(h)(3)(viii).