dismissed EB-1A Case: Quantitative Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7976686 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a financial trading firm, seeks classification of the Beneficiary , a quantitative researcher , 
as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, 
as required. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to give due consideration to the submitted 
evidence and did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the facts presented. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a 
beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three 
of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner establishes that a beneficiary 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a financial trading firm, currently employs the Beneficia as a quantitative researcher. 
The Beneficiary completed his doctorate degree in physics at University in 2016, and 
received his bachelor of technology degree in physics from the.__ _ _.Institute of Technology in 2011. 
He has previously worked as a graduate assistant in the physics department at I I University 
and as a quantitative summer associate" wit~ I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must establish that he satisfies at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner submitted 
evidence establishing that the Beneficiary met two of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating to 
authorship of scholarly articles and high salary or other remuneration. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
and (ix). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the evidentiary criteria 
relating to published materials (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) and original contributions of major 
significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on its submission of published 
articles in scientific journals that cite to the Beneficiary's own published papers. The Director noted 
that such articles do not satisfy the plain language of this criterion because such articles are primarily 
about the authors' own research and findings, not the Beneficiary or his work. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner, through counsel, states: "The criterion at 8 CFR 204.5(h) relating to 
published material about the beneficiary reads 'Published material in professional publications written 
by others about the alien's work in the academic field."' The Petitioner states that "based on a plain 
reading of the above, it is clear the Service has imposed evidentiary requirements beyond what is 
stated in the regulations." 
However, the language quoted in the Petitioner's brief is not the language found in the applicable 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Rather, the Petitioner has quoted the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), an evidentiary criterion that applies to immigrant petitions for outstanding 
professors and researchers. The plain language of the applicable regulation requires "Published 
material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to 
the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." We agree with the Director that 
scientific journal articles that include a citation to the Beneficiary's research among dozens of other 
citations do not qualify as published material about the Beneficiary. The Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence establishing that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has a beneficiary made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the 
field. 1 For example, a petitioner may show that a beneficiary's contributions have been widely 
implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner claimed in its initial cover letter that the Beneficiary has made four original 
contributions of major significance, noting that although his published research is in the field of 
theoretical condensed matter physics, his findings have had "a major impact on related fields and 
industries." Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the novelty of the Beneficiary's 
research through recommendation letters praising him for the originality of his studies, the letters do 
not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact his research 
has had on the overall field. 2 
The first of the four contributions relates to the Beneficiary's research on.___~---------' 
systems, in which he "investigated two unique metrics used to understand the structure and [uantuml 
geography of systems:,__ ___________ _,metrics." I l of 
University explained that the Beneficiary "aimed to create a system withl !quantum distance 
measurements with locall I," noting that "such a system would represent a completely 
new frontier for studying the effects of the interaction between electrons in I I systems with 
I !quantum geometry." I I states that the Beneficiary established that thel I 
systems he studied had "several unique properties" and describes those properties. The Petitioner also 
1 See USCTS 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/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
provided a letter from.__ ________ __. an assistant professor of physics at University of 
~====:::;--------,-, who co-authored the Beneficiary's published research in this area. ~ 
I ldiscusses their shared interest in the research, explaining that 1 I systems (systems 
where kinetic energy I I ... can provide important insights on the interplay of strong correlation 
effects and quantum geometry." He further explains that, prior to the Beneficiary's study, "the effects 
of different I O lmetrics in I !systems were largely ignored, despite their importance." 
I I summarizes the Beneficiary's research, emphasizes that it is "especially novel" and 
explains that he "introduced an exciting new frontier in the study of interaction effects in systems with 
I I geometry" which has "laid a strong foundation for future research." While both expert 
letters address the novelty of the research and generally note that it lays the groundwork for further 
studies, neither indicates that the Beneficiary's research has been regarded in the field as remarkably 
impactful or influential. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance 
as a result of three research studies focusing on I I which it describes 
as "an exotic phase of matter found in several different com ounds." The first of these studies 
involved a type ofl I known as theL..._ __ _,---,__ ____ ____J. I I .__ ____ __.I an associate professor at the University of.___~ ho co-authored the Petitioner's 
published research on this topic, states that "[a] particularly 
1
nsighyul contribution by [the 
Beneficiary] was his recognition that the symmetry properties of the implied that each domain 
wall would have ~ I moment," a property very relevant to experimental studies." He further 
states that, based on the Beneficiary's research, "the field now has a much more comprehensive 
understanding of this complex state of matter." Similarly
1
1 I University professor I I 
I I notes that the Beneficiary's "detailed analysis of[ I inl I systems 
provided several key insights" that are "directly relevant to experimental physicists" and have 
provided "a strong basis for several additional studies." 
.__ __ ..,---~~~-~=~~---------~w-h-o_c=o---a=ut=h=o=r=ed=, the Beneficiary's 2014 
article ' ' discusses this research 
in his letter. He explains that the Beneficiary "evaluated whether ,----- .......... ____________ ...J 
an interesting state of matter he previously observed in.__~_~__.systems" could also be found in 
I I systems." I I summarizes the study, noting that the Beneficiary "theorercally I 
demonstrated the existence of analo s of the state in~ systems with high 
numbers, a first of its kind findin i hysics." He describes the study as "especially 
valuable to the field of,__ _____ _.physics and beyond because of its versatility" and notes its 
"significant implications for experimental physics." 
The Petitioner also provided an independent adviso 
of thq I Institute for the Physics o;::~;:_ .... _-_ ..... _-_-_-_-_~~m~~=~~----___Jt-"'-'===---, 
focuses on the Beneficiary's 2016 paper entitled '.__ __________________ ~ 
I t' I k describes the "novel research study," noting that the Beneficiary 
"studied the I I system" in order to "understand howl I chooses 
its minimum energy state near specific integer densities." I lstates that the Beneficiary's 
findings "were important for the field at large, as they were the first to demonstrate I I 
within thq !context." He further indicates that the research is "impactful, as it inspired 
similar studies on other components" and "has direct applications to experimental physics." D 
4 
~----~I also discusses the novelty of the Beneficiary's study, noting that he has found the 
Beneficiary's results "immensely useful in properly explaining various complicated experimental 
measurements." 
We agree with the Director's determination that the letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the novelty and utility of the Beneficiary's research studies without providing specific 
examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major significance in his field. Letters 
that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and 
its impact on subsequent work add value. 3 Letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do 
not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting 
this criterion. 4 USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. US. Att '.r Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The authors' assertions in the above-referenced letters do not 
explain, for example, how the Beneficiary's research findings have been widely implemented or relied 
upon by others in the field, and do not sufficiently identify their significance and influence. General 
statements indicating that the Beneficiary's research is "pioneering," "impactful," or "of great value" 
are not sufficient without an explanation as to why the research is deemed by experts as a contribution 
of major significance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's evaluation of the expert letters "fails to give any 
context to [the Beneficiary's] field ofresearch," noting that as a theoretical physicist his work "focuses 
on discovering the underlying, theoretical principles that make up the physical world." Further, the 
Petitioner states that "[ a ]rguably the foundational insights about our world provided by [ the 
Beneficiary] represent major contributions in their own right." The Petitioner previously submitted 
an two articles discussing the field of theoretical physics, including one titled I I I t published by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. The article discusses theoretical 
physics as I I' and I l 
I t because it I I 
technologies of tomorrow." The article highlights major breakthroughs in theoretical physics that led 
to technological applications such as wireless communications, transistors, fiber optics, MRI 
technology, and lasers. It does not follow, however, that any published research in the area of 
theoretical physics should be deemed an original contribution of major significance. Here, the 
submitted evidence does not establish how the Beneficiary's own novel research has advanced 
theoretical physics to the extent that his finding are regarded as remarkably impactful or influential, 
either to other theoretical physicists, to those focused on experimental or applied physics, or to the 
larger scientific community. 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's research is "significant" because "it forms the basis on 
which other major developments in a wide range of fields are built." The Petitioner references a letter 
from the Beneficiary's current supervisor,! I and notes that the contributions discussed 
b~ I "represent[] only one example of how theoretical physics can be applied to result in 
tangible real world development." In his letter.I I a quantitative technologist, states that 
the Beneficiary's responsibility as a quantitative researcher is focused around "developing numerical 
methods that can automatically generate forecasting models with statistically robust forecast properties 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 Id. at 9. 
5 
and design scientific experiments that can reliably identify profitable hyperparameters of such 
methods, making them viable for live trading." He goes on to describe "[t]hree major contributions 
of [the Beneficiary's] work that were of vital importance to [the Petitioner]." Althoug~ I 
states that the Beneficiary's "ongoing work has had a significant impact on [the Petitioner], as well as 
on the scientific community," he does not elaborate as to how these internal, work-related 
contributions to the petitioning financial trading company have been of major significance to either 
the Petitioner's industry or the scientific community. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that, in addition to the referenced letters, it provided a variety of 
other documentary evidence demonstrating the major significance of the Beneficiary's original 
contributions to the field of theoreticall I physics. Specifically, the Petitioner notes 
that it provided: the Beneficiary's overall citation record, as recorded by Google Scholar; copies of 
articles that cite to his published work; and information regarding the impact of the scientific journals 
in which his work has been published and cited. 
A review of the submitted articles that cite to the Beneficiary's research does not show the significance 
of his contributions to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. For instance, the 
Petitioner rovided a 2014 article entitled 
~------------------~" published in Nature Communications, in which 
the authors cited to the Beneficiary's 2013 article published in Physical Review B. 5 However, the 
authors of the article do not distinguish or highlight the Beneficiary's research findings from that of 
the other 42 cited papers. The evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that the submitted 
examples of citations demonstrate that that there are "countless studies and accomplishments in the 
scientific community" that are based on the Beneficiary's research, or that he has had a major impact 
on "the international scientific community at large." Although the record shows that other authors in 
the scientific community cited the Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
that his work has been cited as authoritative in the field or has otherwise influenced the field in a 
significant way. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that some of the articles that cite to the Beneficiary's work have been 
published in high impact publications such as Science and Nature, noting that "each of these 
publications represent valued sources of information in their respective fields." Generally, citations 
can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's work. However, the fact 
that the Beneficiary has published articles that other researchers have referenced is not, by itself, 
sufficient to establish that he meets all elements of this criterion. Publications are not sufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." We acknowledge, 
however, that a petitioner may present evidence that a beneficiary's articles "have provoked 
widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or entries (particularly a 
goodly number) in a citation index which cite [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative 
of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor. "6 
5 Although we discuss a representative example here, we have reviewed and considered each article that cites the 
Beneficiary's work. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 8. 
6 
The Petitioner argues that the citation rate for several of the Beneficiary's articles exceeds that of 
"average publications." Specifically, the Petitioner emphasized that, according to a 2017 report by 
Thompson Reuters' Essential Science Indicators (ESI), the average citation rate for all articles 
published in 2016 was 1.57 citations. The Petitioner asserts that, based on this ESI report, the average 
article in any scientific discipline receives between one and two citations from other scientists each 
year and publications with over 15 citations in their first year are in the top 1 % of publications. Based 
on this limited comparative data, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's own published papers 
must be considered "incredibly impactful." 
According to the Beneficiary's Google Scholar citation history, he has published one 2016 article with 
four citations, one 2014 article with six citations, and two 2013 articles with eight and fourteen 
citations, respectively. Relying on the Petitioner's own suggested average number of citations per 
year, we note that only one of the Beneficiary's articles appears to have an above-average citation rate. 
If the Petitioner claims that an "average" article would have between 6 and 12 citations between 2013 
and 2019, then the Beneficiary's own 14 citations achieved during that period has not been shown to 
be in the range of being highly cited, and does not support the Petitioner's claims that the Beneficiary's 
published work is "incredibly impactful." The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's 
citation numbers and his overall number of publications, are indicative of an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary "has made tremendously significant contributions to 
his area of expertise," this claim is not adequately supported by the submitted recommendation letters 
or citation evidence. While the record, including the reference letters, establishes that the Beneficiary's 
research has value and has received some attention in the field, it is insufficient to confirm that the 
impact or influence of his work has risen to the level of "major significance" in the field. See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (finding that "letters from physics professors attesting to [a beneficiary's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient to meet this criterion); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013)(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 has not sufficiently 
shown that his research - which has led to incremental advancements in the field, as such are expected 
in any original research - qualifies as contributions of major significance in the field. 
Accordingly, based on the relevant documents in the record, the Petitioner has not shown, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner submitted evidence to satisfy this 
criterion. The record reflects that the Beneficiary authored four articles that were published by the 
journal Physical Review B. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
7 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion. In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary commands a salary or remuneration that is high relative to the compensation paid to 
others working in the field. 7 For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the 
Petitioner provided sufficient documentary evidence showing that the Beneficiary fulfills this 
criterion, and the Director's determination will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-140 that it has offered the Beneficiary an annual salary of$150,000 
and provided a "Confirmation of Employment Offer" letter dated August 2018, indicating that he "will 
be compensated at an annual salary of $150,000 or higher" under the terms and conditions of the 
immigrant petition filed on his behalf The Petitioner has not, however, submitted any supporting 
evidence of the Beneficiary's past earnings, such as recent paystubs or IRS Forms W-2 for a previous 
year, showing that he has already been receiving the stated annual salary. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not provided evidence that the Beneficiary "has commanded a high salary" as required by the 
regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). For this reason alone, we find the evidence 
insufficient to meet this criterion. 
We also note that, as evidence that the Beneficiary's offered salary is high in relation to others in the 
field, the Petitioner submitted a one-page printout from the Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data 
Center's Online Wage Library. The data provided is for the "Financial Analyst" occupation 
(OES/SOC code 13-2051.00) in thel O lmetropolitan area and indicates a "Mean Wage (H-2B)" 
of $86,902 per year. The Petitioner asserts that the FLC's "Financial Analyst" title, which according 
to the provided evidence generally requires only completion of a bachelor's degree, encompasses the 
Beneficiary's occupational title of "Financial Quantitative Analyst," but does not submit evidence in 
support of that claim. In fact, on the Form I-140, the Petitioner identified the SOC Code for the 
Beneficiary's position as 13-2099, which applies to "Financial Specialists, All Other." 8 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the wage information for financial analysts 
constitutes an appropriate basis for comparison when determining whether the Beneficiary's claimed 
salary is high in comparison "in relation to others in the field." See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's 
salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, and we will withdraw the 
Director's finding to the contrary. 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
8 The Department of Labor classifies "Financial Quantitative Analysts" under the OES/SOC Code 13-2099.01. See O*Net 
Online, Summary Report for: 13-2099.01 - Financial Quantitative Analysts, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 3-
2099.01 (accessed on Mar. 18, 2020). The FLC data provided indicates that "Financial Analysts" are in O*Net JobZone 
4, requiring a bachelor's degree. A "Financial Quantitative Analyst" is in O*Net JobZone 5 and typically requires 
completion of a graduate degree. 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in 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 
Beneficiary has the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification on the Beneficiary's behalf: intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward 
the top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, 
the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of the Beneficiary's work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9