remanded EB-1A Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2024 In Re: 33464200 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a financial technology company, employs the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer 
and seeks to classify him as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the 
United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
1 The Petitioner 's signature on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, appears to be digitally reproduced. It is indistinguishable 
from signatures on other fonns in the record, such as Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance of Attorney or 
Representative, and the Form I-140 petition. But we cannot make a conclusive determination, in part because the original 
paper documents are not in the record before us on appellate review. Any future filings in this proceeding must be hand­
signed in ink by an authorized official of the petitioning entity, as required by the form instructions and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(2). A benefit request, such as an appeal, will be rejected if it lacks a valid signature. 8 C .F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(B). 
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 international recognition of the individual's achievements in the field through a one­
time achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can 
submit evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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. If those 
standards do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4) allows the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "established and led to success several businesses" in Ukraine, 
including a ride-sharing service, "luxury retail entities," and a "provider of enterprise software that 
modernized the operations of Eastern European taxi-services." The Beneficiary entered the United States 
in April 2015 as a B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. After holding E-2 nonimmigrant status as a treaty 
investor from 2017 to 2023, the Beneficiary currently holds O-lA nonimmigrant status as an individual 
with extraordinary ability or achievement. The Petitioner offers a platform, conceived by the Beneficiary, 
whereby online purchasers can apply "cash back" rewards to retirement savings or student loan payments. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally 
recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied six of these criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied one criterion, relating to a leading or critical 
role for a distinguished organization. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that it has also satisfied the 
other five claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we will not disturb the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner had met 
the criterion relating to a leading or critical role. We also conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied 
2 
two other criteria, pertaining to memberships and published material. We will discuss the claimed 
criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record documents the Beneficiary's receipt of al IAward for "Financial Technology" awarded 
byl Iin 2019. We agree with the Petitioner that the Beneficiary was the named recipient of the 
award, but we also agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner had not established that the 
award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that thel !Award was "established by ... well-known leading 
national institutions in the retirement planning industry." The cited supporting evidence is promotional 
material from the awarding entities' own websites. We need not rely on self-promotional material of this 
kind. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th 
Cir. 2009) ( concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as evidence of the magazine's status as major media). 
Even then, the language of the regulation requires recognition of the prize or award itself. In response to 
a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner had quoted 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual, which states: "Examples of qualifying awards may include ... 
[c]ertain awards from well-known national institutions or well-known professional associations." 
(Emphasis added.) 
own press release indicates that the Beneficiary received the "inaugural" award, demonstrating 
that the award had no previous history, and therefore no prior recognition, when the Beneficiary received 
the first one. The awarding entity's own promotional statements do not establish that the award is 
nationally or internationally recognized, and the Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that the award 
received industry attention beyond the three affiliated awarding entities themselves. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to meet the criterion's regulatory requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Beneficiary joined the Forbes Finance Council in 2017. The Director concluded that "it appears that 
Forbes Business Council requires an annual fee." The Director quoted 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)( 1 ), which states an association that admits members "based solely on ... [t]he payment of a fee" 
would not satisfy the regulatory requirements. The record, however, does not indicate that payment of a 
fee is sufficient, by itself, to secure Council membership. If an organization requires outstanding 
achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts, then the additional requirement 
of a membership fee is not inherently disqualifying. 
3 
The co-founder and chief operating officer of the Forbes Finance Council stated in a letter that the 
Beneficiary "was invited to join our organization ... due to his outstanding achievements as a leading 
senior-level executive in the financial field, and his extraordinary contribution to the global business 
community." The official stated that a candidate "[m]ust be a senior-level executive with a successful 
company" with at least one million dollars in annual revenue or financing, and must pass "an internal 
review process . . . by our professional selection committee to determine the level of their outstanding 
qualifications within the field, taking into account publications, speaking engagements and other 
contributions that demonstrate knowledge and expertise." The official added that "membership decisions 
are made by recognized national or international experts in finance." 
In the RFE and again in the denial notice, the Director stated that "Forbes Business [sic] Council is a 
resource platform for business networking and marketing," and therefore the Beneficiary's membership 
"would not be considered the beneficiary's membership in an association." The Director did not elaborate 
or cite any record evidence that led to this conclusion. 
Based on the available evidence, and in the absence of contrary evidence, the Forbes Finance Council 
appears to qualify as an association in the Beneficiary's field. The Director did not identify any reason 
to discount the Council official's description of the membership requirements or to question the 
authenticity of the letters containing that information. Therefore, we conclude the Beneficiary has met 
the requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted printouts of several online articles published between 201 7 and 2023. Some of 
these articles are not about the Beneficiary, relating to his work; rather, they include brief quotations from 
the Beneficiary, in a context that make him a co-author rather than the subject of the articles. Other 
materials appear to be promotional in nature, such as an article from Entrepreneur by an author identified 
as working in public relations and marketing. In some other cases, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. But these objections 
do not apply to all the submitted articles. 
Some of the Petitioner's submissions appear to be sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof with 
respect to the regulatory requirements for the criterion. The weight to be afforded to the published 
materials is an issue for the final merits determination. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the person's 
contribution may provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original contributions of major 
significance, particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed significance. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). In some cases, testimonial letters that lack 
corroborating documentation may have somewhat diminished weight. 
4 
We will also consider evidence of significant commercialization of the person's work. Id. The Petitioner 
must establish the nature and extent of the commercial use. 
The Petitioner initially submitted two letters praising the savings methodology that the Beneficiary 
developed and implemented through the petitioning company. Both letters have close ties to the Petitioner 
and the Beneficiary; one, a professor at the ___________ is an advisor to the 
Petitioner; the other, a managing director at a retirement advisory firm, is a member of the Petitioner's 
board of directors. 
The Petitioner's advisor credited the Beneficiary with having "invented a revolutionary new approach" 
to retirement savings by tying "cash back" rewards from online transactions to savings contributions. The 
advisor asserted that "some firms ... have observed [the Petitioner's] success and are trying to imitate its 
approach," but he provided no details or corroborating evidence. 
The member of the Petitioner's board of directors stated that the Petitioner "is partnered with over 1,300 
online businesses." The Petitioner submitted copies of seven service agreements with companies 
involved in various aspects of financial services. Most of the agreements are for the Petitioner to provide 
certain services to customers, for which the Petitioner would waive its fee provided the customer actively 
marketed the Petitioner's service to the customer's own clients. 
Apart from the letters, the Petitioner submitted a document with the heading "Industry leaders 
endorsements." The document includes statements, generally a paragraph in length, from 17 individuals. 
In the denial notice, the Director declined to consider these endorsements, stating that Linkedln is a self­
edited platform that lacks reliability. The record, however, does not indicate that the endorsements 
originated on Linkedin. Rather, the Petitioner appears to have prepared the endorsement document, 
including Linkedln screen captures to provide biographical information about each of the quoted 
individuals. 
Some of these brief testimonials praise the Beneficiary's ideas as "revolutionary" and "the best thing that 
has happened to the retirement industry in decades," and that the Beneficiary "very quickly is making his 
company a household name." Other testimonials focus on the Beneficiary's skills or personal character. 
The brief statements lack significant detail and do not explain how the Beneficiary's innovations are of 
major significance in the field. 
Several statements emphasize potential future impact. A general partner at another financial firm stated 
that the Beneficiary's system "can potentially positively impact millions of Americans." One writer, who 
indicated that the petitioning company "is already starting to have an impact with my clients and is 
potentially at the tipping point of a major impact on how everyday Americans save for retirement," is on 
the Petitioner's board of directors. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner's initial submission had not shown "that the 
beneficiary's work has had significant influence on the field of business at large." 
5 
In response, the Petitioner quoted previously submitted materials and asserted: "Quite a few industry 
influencers had recognized the importance of the beneficiary's solution and invested in his venture." The 
Petitioner stated that the company has raised over $5 million in capital, and claimed: 
Such backing is not possible without a thorough evaluation by seasoned professionals who 
only invest in projects with recognized novelty, distinctive value proposition, and capacity 
for significant growth and impact. The numbers reached by [the Petitioner] speak for 
themselves. 
It is indisputable that the influx of such substantial investments from top-tier country 
investors serves as a resounding endorsement, affirming the originality, uniqueness, and 
tremendous potential inherent in a business idea. 
The Petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence to show that each of these investors based their 
decision on the major significance of the Beneficiary's original contributions, rather than some other 
factor such as their belief that the company would be profitable and therefore offer a worthwhile return 
on investment. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
Beneficiary's original contributions are of major significance in his field. 
Evidence of the alien'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). 
A scholarly article should be written for learned persons having profound knowledge of a field. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)( l ). 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "is a regular author [for] the most prestigious magazine in the 
financial industry- Forbes Magazine." The Petitioner submitted copies of seven articles written or co­
written by the Beneficiary that appeared on Forbes's website between 2017 and 2021. The Beneficiary's 
membership in the Forbes Finance Council provides him with the opportunity to publish such articles. 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary's articles "were not scholarly but informational," and "were 
written for the general population" rather than "for 'learned' persons." 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's conclusion, stating: "The beneficiary's articles are ... 
scholarly and intended for learned persons," "written for other experts," and "written in the specialized 
language that requires deep theoretical and practical understanding of the financial planning market, its 
concepts and mechanisms." 
The record does not support the Petitioner's characterization of the Beneficiary's Forbes "Council Post" 
articles. Several of the submitted articles are aimed directly at parents, saving for their children's 
education; entrepreneurs with startup businesses; and "millennials ... looking for better ways to save." 
Even the articles addressing the financial services industry are written in general terms rather than 
"specialized language that requires deep theoretical and practical understanding of the financial planning 
market." The following quotations are representative examples: 
6 
Millennials need debt counseling now more than ever. With commercial debt from 
student loans, cars and even mortgages continuing to rise, these young adults need to 
understand exactly what their debt could mean for their future. 
* * * 
Millen[ n ]ials have already taken the reins from the baby boomers as the largest generation 
in the workforce. Yet, there appears to be limited access to automated savings and 
automatic retirement contributions for those who desire it, even as other industries keep 
up with the desire for automation. 
The Beneficiary's articles amount to general advice, sometimes promoting the product that the Petitioner 
offers, rather than scholarly writings requiring profound knowledge. 
As explained above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof with 
regard to prizes, scholarly articles by the Beneficiary, and original contributions of major significance. 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner appears to have met its burden of proof relating to two other criteria, 
pertaining to memberships and published materials about the Beneficiary. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the initial criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we will remand the matter for the Director to render a final merits determination in the first 
instance. The Director must evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. A final merits determination involves 
analyzing an individual's accomplishments and weighing the totality of the evidence to determine if 
they have achieved a degree of recognition sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary 
ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.2 
In a final merits determination, evidence of the Beneficiary's existing impact and recognition may have 
more weight than speculation about the impact that his work might have in the future. Among other 
potential factors, the Director may consider whether: 
• The published materials about the Beneficiary's work focus on the importance of his work to the 
field or, instead, primarily serve to promote or advertise his and the Petitioner's work; 
• Other companies have adopted the Beneficiary's innovations; and 
• The Petitioner has established the extent of the Beneficiary's impact on the field. 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
7 
In weighing these issues, the Director must consider the totality of the record. The Director must also 
consider how well the Petitioner has explained the significance of the submitted evidence, and how it 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his field of expertise. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) 
When assessing the extent of the Beneficiary's acclaim and recognition, the Director should keep in mind 
that general figures such as the total amount of student debt in the United States, or the overall rate of 
retirement savings, may illustrate the hypothetical potential impact of the Beneficiary's work, but do not 
establish that he has already earned sustained national or international acclaim for that work. 3 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. 
Under the two-step Kazarian framework, the Petitioner's satisfaction of three baseline criteria sets the 
stage for a final merits determination, but does not determine its outcome. The Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary has earned a degree ofrecognition that indicates sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates 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. 
We remand this matter in order for the Director to render a final merits determination. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3 We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for nonimmigrants of 
extraordinary ability. Ultimately the outcome of this petition rests on its own record of proceedings. 
8