dismissed EB-1A Case: Investment Research

i&wm data dw W 
iearly unwad~qj 
invasinr 4 vp 
" nrk &a 
,v~l.,l~  COT^ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
EAC 03 220 53277 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER  date:^^ 1 9 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the lmmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(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 
decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
EAC 03 220 53277 
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 in 
business. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
fj 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 field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 25, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an 
investment researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as an Equity Research Associate at 
Citigroup Asset Management (CAM). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted certificates indicating that she was named to the Dean's List at Lafayette College 
seven times "in recognition of superior academic work." 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
A certificate from 1995 stating that the petitioner was "initiated as a member into the Alpha Delta 
Chapter of Pennsylvania" of Omicron Delta Epsilon, the International Honor Society in Economics, for 
"high scholastic achievement in the field of Economics." 
An April 1, 1995 letter informing the petitioner of her invitation to membership in the Lafayette 
College chapter of Phi Beta Kappa in recognition of her "outstanding record of achievement at 
Lafayette ." 
An April 2, 1996 letter informing the petitioner of her election to membership in the Beta-Xi Chapter of 
"Phi Alpha Theta, the national honor society for history students." 
The petitioner's Dean's List honors and election to membership by local college chapters of the preceding 
honor societies constitute local recognition, rather than national or international recognition in her field of 
endeavor. Furthermore, the petitioner's election to membership in an "honor society for history students" 
does not relate to the area of expertise in which the petitioner seeks employment (investment research). 
University study is not a field of endeavor, but, rather, training for future employment in a field of endeavor. 
The Dean's List honor certificates and honor society memberships were not presented for excellence in the 
business field, but, rather, for general scholastic achievements and other traits deemed praiseworthy by 
Lafayette College and its local honor society chapters. A student award may place the petitioner among the 
top students at her particular college or university, but it offers no meaningful comparison between the 
petitioner and the nation's most established and experienced investment researchers, who are employed in 
their own right and who do not compete for local academic recognition. We are not persuaded that superior 
academic achievement is a rare mark of national acclaim or extraordinary ability in one's field of endeavor. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in as.rociations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 4 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an April 21,2003 letter welcoming her to regular membership in the Association for 
Investment Management and Research (AIMR). This letter states that the AIMR has "more than 60,000 
members." The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "HOW TO MAINTAIN YOUR AIMR 
MEMBERSHIP." According to this document, a regular member must: 
1. Hold a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution or have equivalent education or work 
experience. 
2. Currently be engaged in acceptable professional work experience. 
3. Pass level I of the CFA [Chartered Financial Analyst] Program and have three years of acceptable 
professional work experience in the investment decision-making process. 
Pass the AIMR Self-Administered Standards of Professional Practice Examination and have six 
years of acceptable professional work experience in the investment decision-making process. 
The above guidelines make it clear that outstanding achievement is not a prerequisite for membership in the 
AIMR. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the AIMR indicating that she "passed Level I of the CFA Study 
and Examination ~rogram."' We cannot ignore that this program "emphasizes the knowledge and skills 
needed to be involved in asset valuation or portfolio management." Satisfying the basic requirements for 
employment in a particular occupation is not evidence of outstanding achievement. Furthermore, we note that 
beyond Level I of the CFA Study and Examination Program, two progressively higher levels of qualification 
exist: Level 11 and Level 111. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has passed Levels 
I1 and 111. 
I At the top of this letter appears a website address for the AIMR. Information from the AIMR website, 
http:llwww.aimr.org (accessed August 15, 2005), states: 
[Tlhe CFA Program is intended to supplement the education and work experience of investment professionals. 
Although the program is open to a wide range of investment specialists, the curriculum emphasizes the knowledge 
and skills needed to be involved in asset valuation or portfolio management. 
The CFA Program is comprised of three levels, each culminating in an examination. You must pass each level 
sequentially, and fulfill other requirements of the program, before earning the right to use the CFA designation. In 
general, each level of the program requires 250 hours of preparation, although time will vary from candidate to 
candidate based on familiarity with the material. The Level I examination is composed of multiple-choice 
questions, Level I1 is composed of item sets (multiple choice questions based on a common vignette), and Level 
I11 consists of essays and item sets. 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 5 
The petitioner also submitted an April 21, 2003 letter welcoming her to regular membership in the New York 
Society of Security Analysts (NYSSA). This letter states that the NYSSA has "over 8,000 members."2 There 
is no evidence showing that outstanding achievement is a prerequisite for admission to membership in the 
NYSSA, or that the petitioner's admission to membership was evaluated by experts at the national or 
international level. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate indicating that she was "elected an Associate Member" of Sigma Xi 
in 2003. The petitioner submitted a document, entitled "About Sigma Xi - Overview," which states: "Those 
who have shown potential as researchers are invited to join as associate members. Full membership is 
conferred upon those who have demonstrated noteworthy achievements in research." From this information, 
it is apparent that outstanding achievement is not required for admission as an Associate i ember.^ Rather, an 
2 At the top of this letter appears a website address for the NYSSA. Information from the NYSSA website, 
(accessed August 15, 2005), states: 
To become a regular member, the candidate shall: 
hold a bachelor's degree from an accredited academic institution or have equivalent education or work 
experience. 
have attained one or more of the following: 
o have attained 48 months (four years) of Acceptable Professional Work Experience and have passed 
Level I of the CFA Program or other such appropriate examination approved by the CFA Institute 
Board of Governors: or 
o have attained 48 months (four years) of Acceptable Professional Work Experience and understand 
that final approval for Regular Membership is contingent on passing CFA Institute's Self- 
Administered Standards of Practice Examination. I understand that I will be approved as an 
Affiliate Member pending passage of the self-administered exam; or 
o already have been awarded a CFA charter; 
sign and submit to CFA Institute a Member's Agreement and a Professional Conduct Statement; and 
complete any additional application procedures or requirements established by CFA Institute for Regular 
Membership in CFA Institute. 
All candidates will need two sponsors: one must be a Regular NYSSA member, the other should be your 
immediate supervisor. If you are self-employed or a senior supervisor, you will need two Regular NYSSA 
members to sponsor you. 
3 Information from Sigma Xi's website, http://www.sinmaxi.org (accessed August 15,2005), states: 
Requirements for Election or Promotion to Membership. 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 6 
individual need only demonstrate an "aptitude for research which is expected in due course to lead to the 
fulfillment of the requirements for full membership." Clearly, "Full Membership" is indicative of a higher 
level of achievement. 
As previously noted, the petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the Alpha Delta Chapter of 
Pennsylvania of Omicron Omicron Delta Epsilon, the Lafayette College chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and the 
Beta-Xi Chapter of Phi Alpha Theta. It is clear from the documentation provided by the petitioner that the 
she was admitted to membership at the local chapter level rather than the national or international level (as 
required by the regulation). Furthermore, members in these student honor societies are admitted based on 
scholastic achievement rather than outstanding achievement in the investment research field. 
In conclusion, there is no evidence to establish that the petitioner's membership in the preceding 
organizations required "outstanding achievements" in investment research or that her admission to 
membership was evaluated by financial experts at the national or international level. There is no indication 
that that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievement of their members in the same manner as 
highly exclusive associations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a jdge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specrJication for which classijcation is sought. 
As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. For example, 
evaluating the work of accomplished professionals as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating students or one's coworkers. 
Counsel states that the petitioner "is a judge of the work of others in a recruiting context. The alien has the 
vital responsibility of interviewing potential candidates for her employer, Citigroup Asset Management." 
Counsel cites the letter from Karen Alsup, now a Senior Vice President in the Corporate Finance Division of 
Wachovia Corporation, and formerly a Vice PresidenVSenior Portfolio Manager in the Emerging Market 
Equities Division at Citigroup, who states: 
Member (Full Member): Any individual who has shown noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in 
a field of pure or applied science is eligible for election or promotion to full membership in the Society by a 
chapter or the Committee on Qualifications and Membership. 
Associate Member: Any individual who has, through initial research achievement in a field of pure or applied 
science, shown aptitude for research which is expected in due course to lead to the fulfillment of the 
requirements for full membership, is eligible for election to associate membership by a chapter or the 
Committee on Qualifications and Membership. 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 7 
[The petitioner's] expertise and know-how have also been crucial in spotting, mentoring, and 
developing junior resources and future talent at Citigroup. She is actively involved in reviewing 
resumes, interviewing candidates, and persuading the chosen candidates to join the firm. Her input has 
been essential in the professional development ofjunior workers in her field. 
It is reasonable to conclude that participation in the hiring and training process for "junior workers" is a 
routine duty expected of Equity Research Associates at CAM. There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner held the final authority in the hiring process at CAM. Nor is there evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has formally judged the work of established financial professionals who have long since completed 
their initial job training. Performing job interviews or assisting in the professional development of junior 
workers (a local or institutional function) is not adequate to distinguish the petitioner from almost all others in 
her field, nor is it adequate to demonstrate her national or international acclaim. 
Counsel further states: 
[The petitioner] was chosen to be an Economics Research Assistant while at Brandeis University, where 
she was responsible for coaching other graduate students in the methodology and execution of various 
financial projects. In addition, she helped them resolve issues which arose during their practical work, data 
analysis and presentationconfirms the alien's role as a judge. . . . 
Contrary to counsel's claim. thc letter from an of Studies and Associate Professor 
of Economics at Lafayette College, offers no information regarding the petitioner's role as a "judge of the work 
of others" in her field. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obai~bena. 19 I&N Dec. 533. 534 (BIA 1988): Matter of Laureano. 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983): Matter of 
Ranzirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Furthermore, we cannot ignore that4 
has never served on the faculty at Brandeis University; therefore, his observations in regard to the petitioner's 
activities there are of limited probative value. Nonetheless, we do not find that teaching, coaching, or 
supervising students is tantamount to judging the work of others in one's field for purposes of satisfying this 
criterion. It is noted that a Brandeis University faculty member, rather than the petitioner, was the final 
authority on issues relating to the students in the Economics Department that university. While a teacher, or a 
research assistant who teaches as a collateral duty, does evaluate the work of his or her students or trainees, 
this evaluation is commonplace and inherent to the process of teaching in an educational setting. 
Contributing to the training of students at one's university, however, does not elevate the petitioner above 
almost all others in her field at the national or international level. We find no evidence to demonstrate that 
the petitioner has formally judged the work of established economics researchers (such as tenured professors) 
who have long since co~npleted their graduate studies. 
In conclusion, the petitioner's involvement in training "students" or in developing "junior workers" is not 
indicative of national or international acclaim and does not fulfill this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signz$cance in the$eld. 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 8 
The petitioner provided letters of support from several individuals who affirm that the petitioner is an expert 
in international finance. We cite representative examples here. 
Carlos Gomez-Lopez, a Vice President at CAM, states: 
At CAM, [the petitioner] is primarily responsible for being in charge of coverage for the Chilean and 
Peruvian banking industry, as well as providing constant and timely support for the coverage of the 
banking sectors in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Portugal. 
[The petitioner] developed important banking industry models for Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Mexico, by 
gathering macroeconomic data from the Ministries of Finance from each country, and projecting trends 
based on the historical data and current events, as well as obtaining banking industry data from the 
Superintendency of Banks and Insurance Institutions from each country. 
[The petitioner] built extensive banking models of Latin American and Iberian banks, analyzing 
historical financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, changes in shareholders' equity and 
cash flows), and making projections for future potential earnings and financial position and strength 
based on their current situation. 
[The petitioner] provided recommendations to buy, sell, or hold on 18 covered companies to portfolio 
managers, for regional portfolios as well as for global ones. 
- 
The record, however, contains no quantitative data indicating that the petitioner's recornmendations 
significantly outperformed those of other investment researchers throughout her industry. Nor is there 
evidence indicating that the petitioner's impact on the financial services industry extends beyond her 
immediate employer and its clients. 
ice President, Global Investment Research, Goldman Sachs, asserts that the petitioner "has 
of major significance to her field," but Ms. Bigio does not specifically identify 
any of the petitioner's original investment research contributions or discuss their impact on the financial 
services industry. Effectively performing the routine duties expected of a capable equity research associate is 
not evidence of a major contribution in the investment research field. 
of Lafayette College notes that he served as advisor for the petitioner's honors thesis, 
mediate Assistance to Debtors (ADE); How Effective a Relief Measure?" He further 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 9 
[The petitioner's] original research examines the impact of Mexico's Assistance to Debtor's program. Her 
work employed qualitative and quantitative research strategies, including a thorough exploration of one of 
the programs put in place to stabilize the economy. Based on my experience, not only was [the petitioner's] 
study of the highest quality in terms of its resource methodology, analysis and insighthlness, but it showed 
her to possess rare intellectual courage and the confidence to be a pacesetter in a new policy area. 
adds that the petitioner was among 2,000 students who registered and presented their research 
papers at the National Conferences on Undergraduate Research in 1996. The record, however, contains no . . 
evidence showing that the petitioner's thesis was published or that it attracted widespread attention from 
financial scholars, economists, or investment professionals. Beyond showing that her work was presented at a 
student conference, the petitioner must show that it has had a substantial impact on the financial services 
industry at the national or international level. 
Karen Alsup, who worked with the petitioner at Citigroup, states: "[The petitioner] constructed a paper 
longlshort portfolio for the Global Financial Group and presented their performance on a weekly basis, which 
contributed directly to the creation of a financial sector portfolio, with an inflow of $250 million." There is 
no indication, however, that this work significantly influenced the petitioner's field or distinguished her from 
other capable investment researchers. 
chief Financial Officer, Mide Technology Corporation, notes that she and the petitioner 
"attended the Lemberg Program at Brandeis ~niversity."iscusses the petitioner's work as an 
Emerging Markets Fixed Income Analyst for Axon Securities, but she does not explain how duties such as 
creating credit quality models, issuing buy or sell recommendations, and preparing asset allocation analyses 
represent a major contribution in the financial services industry. 
As of the date of her letteras pursuing "an MBA degree in International Luxury Brand 
Management at Essec Business School in Paris, France." like the petitioner, is a former 
graduate of Brandeis University. cribes the petitioner's activities while she was employed 
at Paribas Capital Markets and as a consultant for Crane Paper Company, but there is no evidence showing 
that petitioner's work for these companies had a measurable impact on her industry. 
We accept that the petitioner possesses unique skills and knowledge pertaining to investment research, 
emerging markets, financial analysis, and banking sectors in Latin America and South America. However, 
the letters of support do not adequately address specific "contributions of major significance" to the financial 
services industry directly attributable to the petitioner. While the petitioner has certainly enjoyed success as 
an international investment researcher, being an effective equity research analyst does not constitute an 
original contribution of mujor significance in investment research'. The letters of support indicate that the 
petitioner has performed admirably for her employers and their clients, but her ability to significantly impact 
the financial industry in general has not been adequately demonstrated. 
We cannot ignore that all but one of the letters of support are from individuals who are directly affiliated with 
institutions where the petitioner has studied and worked. With regard to the personal recommendation of 
individuals with ties to the petitioner, the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. 
Such letters are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim for her contributions 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 10 
beyond her employers and educational institutions. If the petitioner's reputation is primarily limited to those 
with whom she has studied or worked, then she has not achieved national or international acclaim regardless 
of the expertise of her witnesses. In conclusion, we find that the documentation presented in regard to this 
criterion is not adequate to support a finding that the petitioner's work as an investment researcher is 
nationally or internationally acclaimed throughout the financial services industry as a major contribution. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of her "Honors Thesis" from Lafayette College and a few internal research 
reports she prepared while working for Axon Securities Group. The petitioner's internal research reports for 
Axon Securities Group were marked "For Internal Use Only." Counsel fails to explain how the petitioner was 
purportedly able to achieve sustained national or international acclaim if her work at Axon Securities Group 
consisted of producing closely guarded financial reports. The plain wording of this regulation requires the 
petitioner's work to appear "in professional or major trade publications or other major media." The 
petitioner's evidence does not meet this requirement. There is no evidence showing that the preceding 
documents were published in major media or that any of them were widely viewed throughout the petitioner's 
field as significantly influential. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the fieldat artistic exhibitions or showca.~es. 
The letter from tates: "[The petitioner] presented and led a discussion on the dividend 
discount model (in-house valuation model) for portfolio managers in the Mexican subsidiary of Citigroup . . . 
." The AAO has consistently found, however, that this particular criterion applies to the visual arts, such as 
sculpting and painting, rather than business or scientific research. In the fields of science and business, 
national or international acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work to other 
employees at one's company. The evidence presented here is not adequate to demonstrate that financial 
presentations such as the petitioner's are unusual for an investment researcher. 
r 
The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "Happening NOW at Lafayette" which states: "[The 
petitioner] will present a paper on her research at the loth Annual National Conference on Undergraduate 
Research next month. . . . [The petitioner] is among 40 Lafayette students invited to participate in the 
prestigious research conference, to be held April 18-20 at the University of North Carolina at Asheville." We 
cannot ignore that participation in this conference was limited to "students" rather than established financial 
professionals. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Various witnesses assert that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for CAM, Axon Securities 
Group, Paribas Capital Markets, and Crane Paper Company. We cannot ignore, however, that the petitioner has 
served in subordinate roles to the executives of these companies. For example, the petitioner worked as an 
Equity Research Associate at CAM while served as a Vice President and while- 
erved as Vice PresidentISenior Portfolio Manager. There is no indication that the petitioner has 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 11 
served in an executive or managerial capacity for her employers in the same manner as the preceding 
individuals. Nor is any indication of the extent to which the petitioner has exercised substantial control over 
organizational or high-level managerial decisions executed on behalf of her employers. In regard to the 
petitioner's fulfillment of a critical role, there is no quantitative evidence showing that the petitioner has 
overseen a higher percentage of market capitalization than that of the numerous other investment researchers 
employed by the companies for which she has worked. Nor is there any comparative data indicating that the 
petitioner's research recommendations are consistently more profitable than that of the other investment 
researchers from her companies who handled different global regions. Without quantitative evidence showing the 
petitioner's substantial impact on her employers' overall investment strategies, we cannot conclude that she meets 
this criterion. 
We find that the petitioner's evidence is not adequate to demonstrate that she has performed in a leading or 
critical role for a distinguished organization, or that her involvement has earned her sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salq or other signijcantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, counsel states: "Since the submission of the petition, the alien has received a promotion and a 
raise. . . . [Hler total compensation for 2004 will be approximately $135,000." A petitioner, however, must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). Subsequent 
developments in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish that she was already eligible for the 
classification sought as of the filing date. Furthermore, counsel's statement regarding the petitioner's 
compensation is unsupported by objective documentation (such as payroll records or income tax forms). The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena at 533, 534; Matter of 
Laureano at 1; and Matter of Rumirez-Sanchez at 503, 506. Finally, there is no comparative evidence 
showing that the petitioner's compensation is significantly higher than that of most others in the investment 
research field at the national or international level. 
Counsel takes issue with the following statement from page 2 of the director's decision: "Merely meeting 
three of the ten categories of evidence suggested by the regulation does not automatically establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility for the classification of "Alien of Extraordinary Ability." 
While we may not agree with the exact wording of the above statement, we do not read the director's decision 
as concluding that the petitioner was eligible under the regulations but that the petition was not approvable. It 
is important to note that the controlling purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) is to establish 
sustained national or international acclaim, and any evidence submitted to meet the regulatory criteria must 
therefore be to some extent indicative of such acclaim. A more rational interpretation of the director's 
decision is that the petitioner submitted documentation which related to or addressed three criteria, but that 
the evidence itself did not demonstrate national or international acclaim. A petitioner cannot establish 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria. In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of 
whether it establishes that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim; it is not simply a 
matter of accepting that any piece of evidence presented under a particular criterion automatically satisfies 
EAC 03 220 53277 
Page 12 
that criterion. By way of analogy, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) sometimes requires copies of 
income tax returns to establish that the petitioner has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. 
The petitioner, however, does not automatically meet this requirement by submitting a copy of an income tax 
return. Rather, we must consider the content of that income tax return; if it does not show that the petitioner 
can afford to pay the beneficiary, then the petitioner cannot credibly argue that it met its obligation merely by 
supplying the copy of the tax return. The same reasoning applies to evidence presented under the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner 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 petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.