dismissed EB-1A Case: Options Market

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-V-D-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appt;als Office 
DATE: AUG. 23, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I -140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an options1 market consultant and educator, seeks classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied the initial evidence requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which necessitates either 
1) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or 2) materials that meet at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appellate brief, the Petitioner maintains that the Director 
erred in finding he did not meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. In addition, he states that he 
has demonstrated eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification. 
Upon de novo rev~ew, we will dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in his field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
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 
1 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission provides that "[o]ptions are contracts giving the purchaser the right to 
buy or sell a security, such as stocks, at a fixed price within a specific period of time." See Fast Answers, U.S. Securities 
and Exchange Commission, http://www.sec.gov/answers/options.htm (last visited July 12, 2016). A copy of the 
webpage has been printed and incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
Matter of N- V-D-
whose achievements have been recognized m 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. 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If he does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (di~cussing 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that he has not submitted documentation of a one-time 
achievement, or evidence of a major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, the record does not establish that he meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria listeg under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As he has not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements, we will dismiss the appeal. 
2 
(b)(6)
J 
Matter of N- V-D-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations 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. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
challenge the Director's conclusion. The record supports the Director's finding. The Petitioner 
passed a number of standardized examinations in his field; however, these activities do not constitute 
membership in an association. In addition, although the Director indicated that the Petitioner was a 
member of the and a registrant of the 
a letter from the Petitioner's former employer, stated that 
the firm, not the Petitioner, was a member or registrant of these organizations. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because he "has individually 
performed, led and judge[ d] the work of others in seminars, open houses, workshops and study 
sessions with an international audience in the subject of the U.S. Options Market." The Petitioner 
has submitted documentation showing that he has presented in seminars, taught classes, participated 
in open houses, and conducted workshops and study sessions on topics relating to the options 
market. While the record demonstrates his involvement in these activities, it does not establish that 
he has judged others' work. 
The Petitioner stated that, during the open houses, he 'judge[ d] the work of attendees, the different 
ways in which they operate[ d] the market, and in addition g[ ave] specific indications to improve the 
approach of different participants." The record does not, however, substantiate these claims. In his 
initial filing, the Petitioner discussed in detail these educational activities. He indicated that during 
these events he explained "the theory of the U.S. Options Market," "Options uses, Options strategies 
and advanced Options Theory." The promotional materials showed that these sessions aimed to 
educate and provide insights to those interested in trading in the options market. The transcripts of 
online chats revealed that the Petitioner answered attendees' questions and offered his suggestions 
on trading options. They did not, however, show that he judged the work of others. Without 
supporting documentation, the Petitioner's statement is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting his 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of N- V-D-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because he authored an options 
market manual, in both English and Spanish, and "made important contributions to the U.S. Capital 
Market by actively enacting its importance and advantages to the investing community in Colombia, 
the Hispanic audience, and also to Europeans and Americans themselves." The evidence does not 
demonstrate 
that the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner's contributions must be both original and of major significance in 
the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" are not 
superfluous and, thus, have some meaning. 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 plain 
language of the criterion dictates that a petitioner's contributions must be original, such that he is the 
first person or one of the first people to have done the work in the field, and that his contributions 
must be of major significance in the field, such that they significantly advanced or impacted the field 
as a whole. Regardless of the field, the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" 
requires substantiated impacts beyond one's collaborators, employer, clients or customers. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The Petitioner submitted an English and a Spanish version of an options market manual, indicating 
that the manual was for an "Options Market Course by [the Petitioner]." This work was not 
published and appeared to be a PowerPoint presentation that the Petitioner offered during his 
seminars or other related events. The record lacks evidence showing that the manual was of "major 
significance" in the field. a professor at the 
referring to the Spanish version of the manual, stated that the Petitioner "wrote a 
textbook about the Options market," in which "he explain[ ed] to his students in his courses and 
seminars quantitative and analytical tools necessary to address advanced topics related to the U.S.A. 
Options Market." Neither Professor nor any other reference discussed how the manual 
influenced the field as a whole at a level consistent with a finding of "major significance." The 
Petitioner has not presented materials on the field's .reception of his work, or proof that the manual 
significantly advanced or impacted the field. 
Similarly, although the Petitioner has engaged in educational and information sharing sessions, such 
as seminars, open houses, workshops and study groups, he has not demonstrated that these activities 
were of "major significance in the field." Professor indicated that the Petitioner, as an 
educator in the options market, has made "important contributions" to individuals who attended his 
seminars and related sessions. However, the plain language of this criterion requires a showing of 
"contributions of major significance in the field," which necessitates evidence that confirms impacts 
beyond the Petitioner's collaborators, employer, clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134-35. an author, educator, and entrepreneur, provided that "[t]he work of [the 
Petitioner] is very important promoting and educating investors all over the world in the field of the 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of N- V-D-
U.S. Options Market." But neither Professor nor discussed details that support 
a claim of the Petitioner's influence on the entire field. As a result, the record lacks sufficient 
corroborating evidence establishing the Petitioner's major significance in the field. 
Many of the references commented on the Petitioner's knowledge on the options market, but they 
did not identify the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field. For 
example, an investment desk manager at an 
investment bank in Colombia, stated that the Petitioner "is known and sought after for his 
outstanding and extensive ability in the Options Financial Market." a 
manager at provided that the Petitioner "is the person who has the 
expertise to tum to, if you want to learn how to invest in the market in the United States." 
the vice president of sales at offered that, in Colombia, the Petitioner 
is "one of the most knowledgeable in the U.S. options financial market." a 
manager at wrote that the Petitioner is the "most 
knowledgeable person in Colombia in regards to the United States' Options Markets" and he "trains 
financial professionals" from different parts of the world. an export buyer at 
said that the Petitioner is "very well known as an expert in the field, 
so people try to get his advice even out of working hours." an advisor 
deputy minister of foreign affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, indicated that he 
had asked the Petitioner for investment advices and that the Petitioner is "the best financial 
consultant and educator ... on investing in the United States market." 
Assuming these individuals' assessments of the Petitioner's knowledge were accurate, they did not 
address the plain language requirements of this criterion. Being experienced or knowledgeable in a 
field is not the same as making original contributions of major significance. Without substantiated 
explanations of how the Petitioner has made such contributions, the complimentary reference letters 
are insufficient to meet this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd 
in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not 
specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions 
influenced the field are insufficient to meet this criterion.). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
shown he meets the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he "has developed an Options Market Manual that contains all 
the important information for understanding the U.S. Options Capital Market." He has not specified 
which criterion this satisfies. To the extent he offers it to meet the criterion relating to the authorship 
of scholarly articles, he has not shown that his manual is published. Rather, the manual is a teaching 
aid for his seminars and related events. As the Petitioner has not established that the manual 
appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media, he has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-V-D-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critic~! role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because of positions he held in 
and As supporting 
evidence, he has submitted letters from his former and current employers, and materials about these 
entities. The reference letters, together with other documentation in the record, do not establish that 
he meets this criterion. 
The plain language of the criterion requires a petitioner to illustrate he has performed a leading or 
critical role for qualifying organizations. A leading role should be apparent based not only on the 
petitioner's title but his duties associated with the position. A critical role should be evident from 
the petitioner's impact on the organization or establishment as a whole. To show his role in an 
organization or establishment, the petitioner may submit an organization chart demonstrating how 
his role fits within the hierarchy of the organization or establishment. 
The Petitioner was an options broker for According to 
the president of the firm, the Petitioner's work was "outstanding" and he had "a 
leading role in his position developing activities and tasks way beyond his normal responsibilities." 
indicated that the Petitioner was "of significant importance to [the] organization" 
and that his "contributions to [were] highly valued." 
Despite the material regarding the Petitioner's role with the organization, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence showing that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
indicated that the company is a member of the a registrant of the 
and authorized to trade and offer investment services to 
its clients in the futures and options markets. The Petitioner has submitted promotional and outreach 
materials explaining the company's investment strategies. He has not, however, presented 
documentation on the firm's reputation. 
The Petitioner stated that is an "introducing broker for 
otherwise known as He noted that "has client 
accounts and clears Options trades through He submitted documentation relating 
to operation in the commodities, agricultural processors, and food ingredient providers 
markets, and included information regarding reputation. These materials did not, however, 
explain the significance of status as introducing broker or how 
this role affected the firm's reputation. The Petitioner also did not file materials from professional, 
major trade publications, or mass media verifying the firm's reputation. Without additional 
corroboration, the Petitioner has not illustrated that his position with 
meets this criterion. 
Similarly, although the Petitioner has presented evidence relating to his role in he has 
not shown that the company has a distinguished reputation. the owner of the firm, 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of N- V-D-
confirmed that the Petitioner is its options program director and senior options instructor. He 
indicated that the Petitioner is "talented, disciplined, and with a profound and specialized knowledge 
and the desire to share and teach that knowledge." However, the record includes minimal 
information on stated that it is "one of [his] biggest education companies 
in the U.S. markets and worldwide," but did not provide information on the entity's reputation 
among others. a trader at the firm, provided that is "one of the largest 
education companies on the capital markets in the world," but he did not offer any objective 
corroboration of this statement. Without additional documentation, the Petitioner has not established 
that has a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that has a distinguished reputation. The 
Petitioner stated that is [a] local company in -Colombia, dedicated to 
Advanced Trainings in the Capital Markets." He presented materials from the company's website. 
He acknowledged, however, that the company "is not a big distinguished company or world­
renowned." Without evidence of the entity's distinguished reputation, the Petitioner's involvement 
with the firm does not meet the plain language of the criterion. 
Finally, while the Petitioner's curriculum vitae indicated that he worked for 
he did not explain how his employment as an independent investment advisor illustrated that 
he performed a leading or critical role for the entity. The Petitioner has not shown that his title, 
duties, or impact were indicative of a leading or critical role. For these reasons, the Petitioner does 
not meet 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he "commands high remuneration for his consultant and 
training services in relation to others in the field." The Petitioner stated that his income was "in 
excess of 90k" between April 2013 and March 2014. He submitted bank documents as supporting 
evidence of his income. The Petitioner has not, however, shown he meets this criterion. 
The submitted documentation is insufficient to verify the Petitioner's salary or remuneration. The 
Petitioner's bank statements listed deposits from his former and current employers. These bank 
records, while indicating the sources of the funds, did not explain the purposes of the funds, or show 
that they were his income. The Petitioner has not established that the bank transactions related to his 
salary or remuneration for services. 
The Petitioner offered an printout, stating that it showed he received 
$53,825.88 in "commissions" and $38,973.13 in "fees" in 2013. The documentation provided 
reflected that in 2013, under the category of "Client Fees," revenue was $53,825.88, expenses were 
$51,762.60, and net was $2,063.29. The Petitioner has not explained how a $2,063.29 net in "Client 
Fees" constitutes a significantly high remuneration for services. Regardless, assuming arguendo 
that the Petitioner did earn "in excess of 90k" in 2013, he has not shown that this amount meets the 
(b)(6)
Matter of N- V-D-
criterion. According to materials from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the Petitioner presented, 
the average annual wage for a financial specialist in May 2014 was $71,230. The Petitioner offered 
printouts from other online sources indicating that the average salary of an options market consultant 
in August 2015 was $77,000 in Florida, and $82,000 in the United States. 
Although the Petitioner's claimed salary "in excess of 90k" is more than these averages, he has not 
provided information regarding the higher end of the salary spectrum. Evidence of earning 
marginally more than the average is not sufficient to meet the plain language of this criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not presented evidence regarding the salaries of options market 
educators. He claimed extraordinary ability as both an options market consultant and an options 
market educator. Without documentation of his earnings as an educator and the comparative 
income of others in the field, he has not shown that he commands a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration for services. For all of these reasons, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his commissions of $53,825.88 and fees of $38,973.13 
constitute "evidence of commercial successes in his performances." The Petitioner has not shown 
that he meets this criterion. First, the plain language of the regulation indicates that the criterion is 
applicable to the performing arts. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his work as an options 
market consultant and educator falls within the performing arts. Second, the Petitioner's 2013 net 
commissions were approximately $2,000 and his fees were $38,973.13. He has not established that 
these amounts are sufficient to show "commercial successes." Accordingly, the Petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The Petitioner has been working as an options market consultant and educator for a number of years. 
The reference letters stated in general terms that he is capable, knowledgeable, and important to his 
former and current employers. The record, however, does not establish that he meets at teast three of 
the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, our next step of analysis would be a final merits 
determination that considers all ofthe submissions in the context of whether the Beneficiary has 
achieved: 1) a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor," and 2) "that the [Petitioner] has sustained national or 
international acclaim" and that his "achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not 
8 
Matter of N- V-D-
done so, the proper conclusion is that he has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
achieved the level of expertise required for the classification. He has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of extraordinary ability in the field. A review 
of the submissions in the aggregate does not confirm that he has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The Petitioner, therefore, has not established his eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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 Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-V-D-, ID# 17570 (AAO Aug. 23, 2016) 
9