dismissed EB-1A Case: Investment Banking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 17, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an investment banking professional, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that he only met one of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
Matter ofN-M-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets fmth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS
The Petitioner is a senior investment banking associate. As he has not received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the record must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director held that the Petitioner had not 
established that he met the criteria for membership, published material, original contributions of major 
significance, scholarly articles, and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), 
and (viii), respectively. While the Director held that the Petitioner met the criteria for judging and 
high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix), he denied the petition because the Petitioner had not 
met at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he 
meets the criteria for original contributions of major significance and leading or critical role, in 
addition to the criteria for judging and high salary, as held by the Director. Upon reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three 
criteria, as required. 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion. Upon further review, we conclude that this has 
not been established. In the initial filing, the Petitioner asserted that he met this criterion through his 
role at 1 I inl I The record contains a letter froml I a partner 
for I I indicating that the Petitioner reviews the work of his subordinates there as well as work 
done by professionals working with the company in finalizing transactions. The record also contains 
a redacted employee's performance review that the Petitioner conducted and a letter from I I 
I I partner in the Corporate Finance Mergers and Acquisitions Advisory Practice forl I
2 
Matter ofN-M-
stating that the Petitioner "not only reviews the work of his subordinates but also reviews the work of 
his peers, namely other managing directors." Here, the Petitioner has not established that reviewing 
the work of his subordinates and co-workers represents his participation as a judge of the work of 
others. The record does not describe the nature of the Petitioner's review of his peers' work in 
sufficient detail to determine if such action satisfies the regulatory requirements. Furthermore, he has 
not established that this criterion should be read so broadly as to include his supervisory role in 
overseeing employees and their work within an organization. Thus, the Petitioner has not established 
that his role in evaluating the work of his subordinates and other professionals meets the requirements 
of this criterion. 
In another aspect of the Petitioner's work) I states that the Petitioner "constantly reviews 
and evaluates valuation models, financial analysis and client presentations prepared by other 
executives on the deal." However, the Petitioner has not established how his work in evaluating these 
items amounts to his participation as a judge of the work of others. The record reflects that these are 
internal responsibilities that are consistent with his position at I I as a senior investment banking 
associate. Specifically,! lstates that the Petitioner's main focus of his analysis and 
reviews include "client investment highlights and industry positioning," "cash flow analysis," "risk 
tiering," "allocating purchase price over client's assets," determining "optimal deal terms and pricing," 
conducting diligence in triangulating data and validating business and owner identity, and assessing 
the "impact on existing client employees and creation of additional jobs." The Petitioner has not 
provided evidence to establish that this analysis constitutes his participation as a judge of the work of 
others. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. The 
contributions must have already been realized, rather than being prospective possibilities. They must 
be original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. Finally, the 
contributions must rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project 
or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and thus has meaning. See
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P.. 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v.
Potter. 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003). The term "contributions of major significance" connotes 
that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not established that he met this criterion, noting that the 
evidence in the record indicated that he was involved in large financial transactions, but that he had 
not demonstrated that the methods he utilized were particularly novel or that they had been widely 
adopted in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion due to his "major role in monumental deals 
including the $30 billion merger between thel !Group LLP andl I 
AG," for his work in advising the UK government as pa1t of the and 
for his contributions in the "initial public offering (IPO) of1 I"
3 
Matter of N-M-
To establish eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner has submitted a number ofletters as evidence, 
but for the reasons discussed below, they fail to identify his original contributions or the significance 
of their impact on the field. 1 
First, the Petitioner must establish that he has made original contributions. The Petitioner cites a letter 
froml I senior managing principal of the investment banking division at I I I !discussing the Petitioner's role atl � as the lead advisor on the I I I !Group merger. I I states that the Petitioner created "common risk management and 
default framework for market utilities," performed "due diligence and financial feasibility studies," 
and "stock analysis and franchise valuation." He asserts that "[the Petitioner's] work was clearl 
ori inal." Similarl the head of banking and capital markets for .__ ____ °'"' 
in ___ discusses the Petitioner's work while employed at.__ __ _. 
1---........ 1-n
___,..
e_v_e ..... o-p-1_n_g_ a
---.-
-ro-a .... a strategy for the UK financial services sector due to the effects of a 
financial crisis. He states, "[c]learly, the industry sees [the Petitioner's] strategy as original." 
However, these letters lack sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's contributions to determine their 
originality. Although both authors claim the Petitioner's contributions to be original, the record lacks 
corroborating evidence and we need not accept primarily conclusory statements. See 17 5 6, Inc. v. The
U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Thus, the Petitioner has not established that he 
has made original contributions. 
Second, if the Petitioner had shown that he had made original contributions, he must also establish 
that they were "of major significance in the field." See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. In discussing 
the Petitioner's role with the....._ _______ ..... Group merger, l I states that "[his] work 
was ... significant in that this transaction was an enormous undertaking that merged two independent 
institutions into one to create a global leader in the field .... " The Petitioner has not explained how 
the size of this merger is an indication of his impact in the field, and the record does not reflect that 
his contributions have widely influenced the field. The Petitioner also asserts that the media attention 
to this deal demonstrates that he meets this criterion, but he has not identified what media coverage he 
refers to. While the record contains an article from The Guardian and one from The Economist about 
this merger, they do not mention the Petitioner and he has not otherwise explained how his role in this 
� impacted the field to constitute a contribution of major significance. In addition, although D
L__Jstates that this work paved the way for a potential merger "with the American clearing house 
IC E," the Petitioner's contributions must have already been realized, rather than being prospective 
possibilities. 
The Petitioner asserts that his work advising the UK government while atl I for theD 
I 7 Strategy Advisory represents a contribution of major 
significance. In a letter from I rii'.ianaging director of the investment banking division at 
.__ ____ ___.I Partners in New York, he states, "[t]hel lwas a corporation set up by the UK 
government for the purpose of managing the UK Treasury's shareholdings in various banks that 
subscribed to its capitalization fund." I I asserts that it is his understanding that the Petitioner 
was responsible for "providingl lwith recommendations for how best to manage the government's 
shares in both thel landl I" He then indicates, "[t]his was 
1 While we do not cite to each letter in support of the petition, we have considered all of them. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 
905 F. Supp. 2d 535, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Chen v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir. 2006)). 
4 
Matter of N-M-
an incredibly important role during this project because [the Petitioner] was in charge of aiding the 
government to act in a way that promoted competition in the UK financial industry that benefitted 
consumers." I lnotes that this project "was also a success because it was the final major piece 
of the UK financial reform agenda that ensured banks would have sufficient loss-absorbing capacity 
to counter any future economic recessions." While letters from experts that articulate the specifics of 
a petitioner's contributions and their impact on the field may add value, letters that lack specific and 
simply use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 2 Here, I ldoes not identify the specific 
contributions made by the Petitioner nor explained how his individual work on this project influenced 
the field. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his work onD while I I to 
constitutes original contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his role in the IPO of __ .======--equates to a contribution
of major significance in the field. The Petitioner quotes! I as stating, "[t]hanks in large 
part to the tremendous value of the transaction thjt [the 
1
etitioner] was able to secure on behalf of the
client, it was just announced this summer that made the Forbes Fortune 500 list of most 
valuable companies." Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that his work on 
the IPO has impacted the field in a manner consistent with this criterion. See Visinscaia. 4 F. Supp. 
3d at 134 (upholding the conclusion that the term "contributions of major significance" connotes that 
the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field). Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 3 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. 4 If a critical role, 
the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may be considered 
"critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It is not the title 
of the petitioner's role, but rather his or her performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical. 5 
The Director held that the evidence in the record demonstrated that the Petitioner was involved in large 
projects for his employers but that this did not establish a leading or critical role to these organizations 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions;
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf 
3 The record contains a letter from.__ _____ -1 managing director, head ofl I 
":"-:----:-:-:----:;::::::===::::!s::.:::ta::::tl�·ng that the Petitioner was a key member of the team that advised! I 
in its acquisition of......._. ____ __. He states that deal became well-known in the field and this strategy has influenced 
several other banks in the industry. Counsel for the Petitioner does not raise this on appeal, and the evidence in the record 
does not substantiate this claim. While the record contains an article from the Los Angeles Times and another from an SNL
Financial blog about this transaction, these publications do not discuss the role of the Petitioner or his team, and the record 
does not contain additional evidence demonstrating that his strategy influenced other banks in the industry. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
5 Id. 
5 
Matter of N-M-
as a whole On appej l, the Petitioner asserts that he has performed a leading or critical role fo� 
md l _ 
---
The Petitioner submits a letter from I l a partner in the financial services advisory
ractice at which discusses the Petitioner's work on the 1 I 
1----, .--------'' noting that I I is thel I largest bank in the world and the 
largest bank in Europe. He indicates that in 2015, I I announced "a radical 
restructuring effort in order to restore [its] reputation and profitability in the wake of the 2008 financial 
collapse." He explains that as part of this restructuring,! t'decided to divest their entire 
I !business as part of a wider strategy of business prioritization." I I adds 
that the Petitioner "possessed the skills md experience necessary to facilitate the divestiture" and "was 
placed in the role of Lead Advisor forl I to work with I lduring the divestiture." 
I !indicates, "[d]uring the course of the project, [the Petitioner] was solely responsible for
creating the strategy, operation, md implementation plm for the divestiture, which was valued at over 
£2.4 billion, as well as malyzing the options for the divestiture and what impact the divestiture would 
have o� Is remaining assets." Here, we find that the Petitioner has established that his 
role as the lead advisor in the divestiture of this size represents a leading or critical role for I I 
an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
Similar! , further discusses the Petitioner's role as "the Lead Associate for thel I 
____ -Strategy Advisory team atl I" He states that he worked closely with the 
Petitioner in a project that was "extremely critical for the overall recovery and direction of the UK 
financial services industry," noting that it was "the first time an orgmization likel lwas formed 
to tackle .. . the repercussions of the financial crjsj�.'' He indicates that c=J "relied upon [the
Petitioner's] recommendations to advis�._ ____ __.J Treasury for returning big UK banks to private 
ownership, realizing value for the taxpayer md executing the chosen strategy suggested by the 
Petitioner's team for realizing value for the Government's ownership stakes in m orderly and active 
way over time." We find that that the Petitioner's actions as the lead associate for this advisory team 
represent a leading or critical role for ______ an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services. in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The record contains evidence of the Petitioner's salary at I l including a statement of his 
compensation for 2015 and a letter from the Human Resources Service Delivery Manager, stating his 
salary and the equivalent for the same position in the United States. The record contains 
documentation from PayScale, which states the salary for the top ten percent of those in positions as 
mid-career investment bankers in the United States. As the Petitioner's equivalent U.S. salary exceeds 
this amount, he has established by the preponderance of the evidence that he has commanded a high 
salary in relation to others in the field. Therefore, he has established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
6 
Matter ofN-M-
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-M-, ID# 2525207 (AAO May 17, 2019) 
7