dismissed O-1A Case: Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 09, 2024 In Re: 32024996 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an investment and advisory firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an external 
managers evaluation specialist, as an individual of extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
classification is available to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition on the following two grounds: 1) the 
Petitioner did not satisfy the advisory opinion requirement, and 2) the Petitioner did not show that the 
Beneficiary received a major, internationally recognized award, or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&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 dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 
214(c)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires the petitioner to submit an advisory 
opinion from a peer group or a labor organization. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 
214.2(0)(5). If the petitioner establishes that an appropriate peer group, including a labor organization, 
does not exist, then a petition may be adjudicated without the advisory opinion. See Section 
214(c)(6)(C) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G). 
As it relates to a beneficiary, section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an 
individual who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has 
been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations 
defme "extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101 (a)( 15)( o )(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Consultation 
The first issue is whether the petitioner has submitted the required written advisory opinion from an 
appropriate consulting entity, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D). If the petitioner establishes 
that an appropriate peer group, including a labor organization, does not exist, UCSIS will render a 
decision on the evidence of record. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G). The Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not establish that there is no appropriate peer group with expertise in the 
Beneficiary's field. On the O and P Classification Supplement that accompanied the Form I-129, the 
Petitioner indicated that an appropriate labor organization does not exist for the petition. In response 
to the questions "[i]s the required consultation or written advisory opinion being submitted with this 
petition?" and "Name of Recognized Peer/Peer Group or Labor Organization" the Petitioner indicated 
"N/A." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), in which the Director advised the Petitioner of the 
requirement to submit a consultation from a peer group. In response, the Petitioner asserted that 
"[g]iven that there is no peer group, including a labor organization that exists in the field of Event­
Driven Investing, in lieu of same, we have submitted advisory opinions from experts in the field, who 
have described [the Beneficiary's] extraordinary ability/achievements and duties performed in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(C)." The Petitioner did not indicate which specific letter or 
letters were being submitted to satisfy the evidentiary requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(ii)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )( 5)(ii)(A) provides that the required consultation may be provided 
by "a person or persons with expertise in the area of the aliens ability." The regulation states that "if 
the advisory opinion is favorable to the petitioner, it should describe the alien's ability and 
achievements in the field of endeavor, describe the nature of the duties to be performed, and state 
1 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
whether the position requires the services of an alien of extraordinary ability." Id. While the submitted 
reference letters are highly complimentary to the Beneficiary, and mention some of his specific 
achievements in his field, none of the letters describe the nature of the duties to be performed or state 
whether the position requires the services of an individual of extraordinary ability. Such content is 
specifically required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(ii)(A). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from its representative who it claims, "offers a written 
advisory opinion in support of [the Beneficiary], discussing his ability and achievements in the field, 
describing the nature of the duties to be performed, and stating whether the position requires the 
services of an individual of extraordinary ability period." We will not consider this evidence as it was 
not presented before the Director. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) 
(providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on 
appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceeding" 
before the Director); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Based on the 
foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner has not submitted the required written advisory opinion 
from an appropriate consulting entity. 
B. Extraordinary Ability in Business 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner offered evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A) or at least three of the 
eight categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l)-( 8). As the Petitioner did not indicate or 
establish the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate 
the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). The Director determined the Beneficiary fulfilled only two criteria, 
scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(6) and employment in a critical or essential 
capacity under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary 
meets three additional categories. 2 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author ofsuch published material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion because "deals [ the Beneficiary] 
worked on" and his contributions of "specific ideas and strategies to key projects" were "discussed in 
major media." It provided articles from rbc.ru, reuters.corn, gipp.ru, interfax.corn, kornrnersant.ru, 
breakingviews.com, ft.corn, capacityrnedia.corn, jp.reuters.corn, bloornberg.corn, vedornosti.ru, 
cnews.ru, and cableman.ru. 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights three translated articles that it contends discussed the Beneficiary's 
work contributions, specifically, of a proposed a special dividend to increase the attractiveness of a 
2 We consider any previous eligibility claims not raised on appeal to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 
330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter o/R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 
I 
difficult initial rice offering of shares in the mobile operator ______________ 
_____ (reuters.com)); and his proposed varied debt restructuring mechanisms in response 
to client inability to service its $220 million debtl 
____ (interfax.com) and ________ (gipp.ru)). 3 In order to fulfill this 
criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about the Beneficiary in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 4 
As noted by the Director, however, none of the articles mention the Beneficiary, and therefore, they 
do not show published material about him relating to his work. In addition, the Petitioner provides 
online translations of the majority of the above articles originally in the Russian language. Any 
document prepared in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete 
and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of many of 
the articles, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus 
supports the Petitioner's claims. Further, much of the material does not contain the required dates and 
authors of the material. Because the Petitioner did not show the articles qualify as published material 
about the Beneficiary and include the required dates and authors, we need not make a determination 
relating to the standings of the websites. 5 
Finally, on appeal the Petitioner requests that "articles and corroborating expert letters be considered 
as comparable evidence, as it has been established that individual employees in the field of investment 
banking are typically not identified in news media." 6 Because the Petitioner did not claim eligibility 
for comparable evidence at initial filing or in response to the Director's RFE, we will not consider this 
basis as it was not presented before the Director. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also 
Obaigbena , 19 I&N Dec at 533. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
3 We note that the online translation of the article from gipp.ru includes that the article' s source is the webpage gazeta.ru, 
about which infonnation was not provided . 
4 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
5 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at M.4(C)(2) (reflecting that in evaluating whether a submitted publication is a 
professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for 
professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade 
publications and other major media). 
6 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that if the criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary 's 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary 's eligibility. See generally 
2 USCJS Policy Manual , supra, at M.4(C)(3) (instructing that a general unsupported assertion that the listed criterion does 
not readily apply to the beneficiary 's occupation is not probative, and officers do not consider comparable evidence if the 
petitioner submits evidence in lieu of a particular criterion that is readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation simply 
because the beneficiary cannot satisfy the criterion). 
4 
Analysis under this criterion focuses on whether the beneficiary's original work constitutes major, 
significant contributions in the field. 7 The Petitioner asserts the submission of testimonial letters 
established the Beneficiary's contributions of major significance. In its initial submission it argued he 
"has participated in $20 billion worth of transactions throughout his career," and "has a record of 
innovative solutions to challenging deals and prescient forecasting, which has resulted in salvaged 
deals, recouped funds, and ultimately strong relationships with major clients that continue to benefit 
[the Beneficiary's] employers." On appeal, it references recommendations letters it submitted from 
five of the Beneficiary's colleagues. 8 
Although the letters highly praise the Beneficiary for his work for various companies, they do not 
identify the Beneficiary's contributions and explain how they have been majorly significant in the 
field. Instead, the letters make broad claims regarding his work in his positions with I I 
I I on behalf of its client companies. For instance, "in 2009 [the Beneficiary] and I worked 
together on a highly complex transaction, whereby I Iwould acquire a 51 % equity stake 
inl I the largest diversified business media holding in Russia at that time, by injecting $80 
[million] into the business .... contingent upon the successful restructuring ofl ldebt" and "[the 
Beneficiary's] team managed to develop a restructuring mechanism that had never been used in Russia 
before" which "provided a powerful boost to the morale of the whole business community" (V-S-); 
"[the Beneficiary] advised I I mobile telecom carrier in Russia - on a series of 
acquisition transactions" of I I with the result that __ 
ascended to number one position in all investment banking league tables," his woron the ___ 
I I reorganization and merger withl "was the largest contributor to 
revenue in 2011," and he "advised Ion $1.6 bln asset swap with . . 
[which] marked yet another step in telecom sector reform in Russia." (M-A-); the Beneficiary 
recouped over $35 million losses for an individual investor through "prescient" forecasting (J-G-); and 
the Beneficiary developed an innovative solution to the initial price offering of shares in the mobile 
operator controlled by telecom firml I which allowed I I to "win 
further mandates from this giant telecom firm" (J-H-). 
As evidenced above, the letters reflect how much his employer valued the Beneficiary's contributions 
to its company. However, the letters do not explain what the Beneficiary has contributed in the field 
and how those contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field. In addition, the 
letters make general claims and point to the Beneficiary's impact on the individual companies rather 
than on the overall field. 9 Moreover, the letters do not articulate how the Beneficiary's performances 
in his roles at ______ somehow influenced or affected the field in a significantly major 
manner. 
Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the person's 
contribution may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original contributions of 
major significance, particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed 
7 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
8 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 Cf., Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met a similar criterion in the immigrant classification for individuals of extraordinary ability under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
5 
significance. 10 Submitted letters should specifically describe the person's contribution and its 
significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of the writer's knowledge and expertise. 11 
In this case, the letters lack specific, detailed information explaining how the Beneficiary has made 
original contributions of major significance. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 
1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
If the petitioner is claiming to meet this criterion, then the burden is on the petitioner to provide 
appropriate evidence establishing that the beneficiary's compensation is high relative to others 
working in similar occupations in the field. 12 The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary qualifies for 
this criterion based on the pay he received with ___________ Russia between 2009 
and 2016. The Director found insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary earned a high 
salary or other remuneration. 
The Petitioner initially provided the Beneficiary's employee compensation statements from 
______ from 2009 through 2015, reflecting his annual compensation package, which 
includes his base salary and incentive bonuses. The Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE 
included the Beneficiary's Russian tax returns for the years 2011 through 2016. This documentation 
shows that in 2016, his total compensation was 11,034,837 RUB, including his base salary of 
8,717,074 RUB. The record further reflects he received total compensation of 17,667,291 RUB in 
2015; 14,571,014 RUB in 2014; 11,159,611 RUB in 2013; 10,020,865 RUB in 2012; and 9,448,750 
RUB in 2011. The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's past salaries are evidence he is "one of the 
few who have risen to the very top of the field of Event-Driven Investing .... " 
The Petitioner submitted a screenshot from glassdoor.com for banking analysts in I I showing a 
"total pay range" in 2023 of 417K RUB to 5M RUB monthly, which did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's past compensation, discussed above, constituted a high salary or other remuneration in 
comparison. 13 Further, the screenshot does not state how many users reported their salaries to make its 
findings, which limits the data's evidentiary value. 
Within its RFE response, the Petitioner also submitted a screen capture, which it described as Russia's 
Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) Salary Data Comparison, surveying wages for different types 
of workers. The Rosstat salary comparison includes the average monthly wage for "Financial 
Intermediation" positions and "Support Activities in the Field of Financial Intermediation" between 
2012 and 2015. However, the statistics from Rosstat do not provide sufficient detail to form a useful 
10 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
11 Id. 
12 Id. 
13 Glassdoor.com salary information is self-rep01ted and not verified. Cf Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008) 
(finding that an open, user-edited internet site, Wikipedia, lacks reliability of the content). 
6 
basis for comparison to the Beneficiary's salary. In this case, the data from Rosstat appears to consider 
all workers engaged in the field of financial intermediation, regardless of education, experience, or the 
complexity of the duties they perfonn, and, therefore, the Petitioner has not shown that such data is an 
adequate basis of comparison to the Beneficiary's position in those years as an investment banking 
vice president. Further, the monthly figure provided is an average. Although the Beneficiary 's 
compensation in those years was above the average figure provided, the data is not sufficient to 
establish that it can be considered to be high when compared to top earners in similar positions. 
Finally, this is a national figure, and therefore does not consider the inevitable differences in 
compensation based upon location, especially in a large territory such as the Russian Federation. For 
all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has commanded a high 
salary or other remuneration based on the Rosstat statistics. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's RFE response provided letters from two Russian financial industry 
recruiters who state, respectively, that the Beneficiary's total annual compensation atl II I between 2009-2016 was "above industry average by approximately 20 to 30%" (E-C-) and 
"15-30% above industry average, depending on the year" (O-F-). However, E-C- and O-F- did not 
support their statements with any corroborating reports. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in 
accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit 
sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 14 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of U.S. salary data from investopedia.com, 
wallstreetprep.com, and finexecutive.com ( quoting wallstreetprep.com as its source) for the positions 
of investment banker, investment banking analyst, and direct investment fund analyst/associate, as 
well as currency conversion charts; however, we evaluate persons working outside the United States 
based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence relevant to their work location, rather than by 
simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered 
high in the United States. 15 The Petitioner has not claimed that the Beneficiary has commanded a high 
salary for a U.S.-based position and therefore that data is not relevant to our evaluation of this criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary meets three categories of evidence. As such, we need not 
provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has arisen to the very top of the field. 
See section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii).16 Accordingly, we 
reserve this issue. 17 
14 Although the Petitioner submits additional testimonial letters from O-F and E-C- on appeal, we will not consider this 
evidence as it was not presented before the Director. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec 
at 533. 
15 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
16 See also 2 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(8). 
17 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "pure ly advisory 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Furthermore, the Petitioner has not provided the required 
written advisory opinion from an appropriate consulting entity as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(ii)(A). 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. 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where applicants do not othe1wise meet their burden of proof). 
8