dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17323258 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 08, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, the chairman and general manager of anl !company, 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)(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, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
seeks to enter the United States to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 
(AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not met this burden. Accordingly, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he 
or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation 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). 
Where a petitioner 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) 
( 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 
~ record reflects that the Petitioner is the chairman and general manager o~ 
L.J, a.__ ______ _. company located inl I China, which he fo~u_n_d-ed-1-.n-1_9_9_8 __ -~ 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims that he meets six of these ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes; 
• (ii), Memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published materials in professional, major trade publications or other major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet any of the claimed criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that he meets all six criteria and contends that the Director improperly rejected, 
disregarded, or overlooked evidence that establishes his eligibility for the requested classification. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that he 
meets the criterion relating to leading and critical roles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). He has 
2 
established that he holds the senior leadership role with~--------~ and submitted 
sufficient supporting documentation to establish the company's distinguished reputation in its 
industry. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that he meets 
at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and therefore, he has not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements for this classification. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he, rather than his employer, is 
the recipient of prizes or awards that are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or 
awards was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes 
or awards, the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number 
of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the awards documented in the record 
are nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes in the field. The Director further o bseived 
that some of the awards appeared to provide government grant funding for future research and 
development efforts rather than awarding excellence in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains 
that the evidence he submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) included 
detailed descriptions of the awards and the processes for granting them, and was sufficient to establish 
that all elements of the criterion were satisfied. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that almost all the evidence submitted under this criterion identifies 
I I rather than the Petitioner, as the named recipient of the awards or prizes. 
Even if we determined that such awards were nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes 
for excellence in the field, only awards received by the Petitioner satisfy the plain language of 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Nevertheless, we will briefly discuss evidence related to the awards received by the 
Petitioner's employer. 
Many of the documented awards and prizes in the record were granted by the Management Committee 
of the I I High Tech Industrial Development Zone. These awards included monetaty 
incentives or subsidy components that the Director characterized as "research grants." The record 
contains a letter from the office manager for the development zone, which specifically discusses the 
I ~Award" and states thatj I has been "the only enterprise in 
I ;dustry to win this award." He explains that the award is intended to 
"recognize and award a group of emerging enterprises from the Development Zone ... that have made 
outstanding contributions to the regional economic development." The letter goes on to describe the 
factors considered in granting this award to an enterprise but it ~oes not io~icate that the Pritioner 
himself was the recipient of this or other awards bestowed on~---~-------' by the 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing 
guidance on thereviewof evidence submitted to satisfy the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). 
2 Id. 
3 
1---------'.c!;.H~i=--'T:c...:e::.:;ch Industrial Development Zone. A second letter from the same official discusses 
i...--------..L'...i.l...J,ili J..l,1 <.....l.!..Lf_"H.!....!..!.i!iii,Jh..!......!.T~h Enterprise" and its receipt of'----------~ 
'---------~~-------' awards in both 2015 and 2018, but again does not identify 
the Petitioner as a recipient of these awards. 
Fmiher, we agree with the Director's dete1mination that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate 
that these awards are nationally or internationally reco ized awards for excellence, as eligibility 
appears to be limited to companies o r in in h High Tech Industrial Development 
Zone. This evidence establishes that.__ ______ ~has consistently received recognition from 
the municipal or regional government for its research and development efforts, innovation and growth 
in the years leading up to the filing of the petition. However, it does not demonstrate that the various 
incentive awards and titles granted byl IHigh Tech Industrial Development Zone tol I I • lvere nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence or thatthey 
were received by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner also claimed recei t of a First Prize award 
and a.__ ______________ __. Second Prize award in 2015 and 2019, respectively. 
With respect to the 2015 prize, the submitted award ce1iificate identifid I as "winne1)' of 
this prize for the project 
.__ __________________ ___.' A separate list of 2015 's winners acknowledges 
two companies and 15 individuals associated with the project referenced above but does not identify 
the Petitioner or.__ _______ ~ among those named contributors. Similarly, information 
regarding the 2019 second prize project identifies I ~ and several other individuals as main 
contributors but does not name the Petitioner or his company among the acknowledged winners. 
While testimonial evidence indicates that the Petitioner's company contributed to these two award­
winning projects, the evidence does not support a determination that he or the company received the 
resulting awards. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that.__ ________ _. was awarded a certificate as a I I 
,__ ___ ___,~ Well-known Brand Product" by the China Industrial I !Association in 2020, 
but this certificate was not accompanied by evidence regarding the award or the national or 
international recognition associated with it, or evidence that the Petitioner himself was a recognized 
recipient of the award. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted evidence related to awards received by that 
were s onsored or awarded b Henan Daily news a er. These awards included: 
i-----------,_ _____ ____J(2015); and (2) ',......__..,__ __ --,----------------,1 
(2016 and 201 7), awarded jointly by,___ _ _. Daily andL_ ____ ---r------,.1 
In addition, in 2018, the Petitioner was named as a .__ _____ __,_ ____________ ......._ ____ .....__ __ --:....~ 
L.._ __ ____,r------,__ _________ ____J by Henan Daily. A letter from Henan Daily 
journalis ~-----__.briefly describes the selection processes for these awards.I I states 
that each winning company and individual is "a leader in the industry" and thatthe awards are "granted 
in line with various regulations of the provincial government, representing the recognition of the 
provincial government to some extent, while also expressing the public opinion of the readers." 
4 
On appea.l, the Petitioner maintains that the Director impro~rly dilsregrded these awards becam,e 
they were bestowed by a "local publication," notwithstandin s statement that thel I 
Daily is '"the most prestigious and influential newspaper in province." However, as noted 
above,I !explained that consideration for such awards was limited to those companies doing 
business in that province (and their leaders) and represent "recognition of the provincial government." 
Therefore, although the Petitioner established that he was a recipient of the 'I I I I award in 2018, the evidence submitted does not establish that this honor qualifies as a 
nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classtfication 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) 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being 
judged by recognized national or international expe1is as having outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought. 3 
The Petitioner initially claimed that he satisfied this criterion because he is the resident of the 
~----------~!Association, the executive vice president of the '-----..----------,., 
Association, and "the Supervisor for The Political and Professional Style,...."-'f:c.,o"""r_t~h"-'=e'-========-. 
Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. Wi;=th""-=-re=s=-:e:..::c;...;;.t-=-to"-----"th=e=-----.------------' 
Association, the Petitioner provided a certificate which names.__ ______ _. as "Executive Vice 
President Unit" for this organization, but it does not mention the Petitioner's name. The Petitioner 
also submitted evidence intended to demonstrate that he is a member and director of the China 
.__ ____ ---,-_..._I_n_d_u_s_try-"---A-.ssociation and a member of the China General Machin9nr Jodustn 1 Association Equipment Branch, but the certificates provided reflect thatl I ,-------------' ~---~ 
~---~ rather than the Petitioner, is a member of these associations. 
In the RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that he did not provide evidence that any of these 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field and advised that evidence such as the associations' bylaws or 
constitutions could be submitted to document the associations' membership requirements and 
membership approval procedures. 
The Petitioner submitted additional evidence in response to the RFE, including a certification letter 
from the China I I Industry Association. This document confirms tha~ I D has been a member of the association since April 2020, states that "every member company" is "a 
leader in the industry," and indicates that the Petitioner "has been elected by the member companies 
and appointed as the Director of the Association and Deputy Director of the I I 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, at F.2 appendix (providing an example of admission to membership in the National 
Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, and 
membership is ultirna tely granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
5 
Professional Committee," based on the success of the company he leads and "outstanding 
achievements in the field of 
This evidence does not establish, however, thatthe Chin~ I Industry Association admits 
individual members and that outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international expe1is, in the field are an essential condition for such membership. The certification 
from the association is not sufficiently detailed in explaining the association's general membership 
requirements, or the selection requirements and processes for director and committee leadership 
positions. As noted, the evidence indicates that this association admits "member companies" rather 
than individual members. The record also contains additional background information regarding this 
association which mentions its "500 member companies" but does not indicate that it admits individual 
members or provide further insight into the requirements that apply to company membership or elected 
positions. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's elected "director" and 
"deputy director" roles require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in this field. 
The Petitioner's RFE response included similar evidence related to the China General Machinery 
Industry Association, I I Equipment Branch. He rovided a "Certification" from the 
association's secretary general indicating that.__ ___ ~----..---- ......... ...,-.. been a "member 
company" since March 2020, and stating that the Petitioner "serves as th....__ __ _.of this Association" 
based on his election by "the member companies." The certification briefly discussd I 
I I's reputation in the industry and the Petitioner's leadership of that company, but does not 
indicate that this association admits individual members based on their outstanding achievements as 
judged by recognized national or international expe1is in this field. Additional introductmy 
information regarding the China General Machinery Industry Association describes its scope (2000 
member companies) and various branches but not does not provide farther insight into its membersrup 
requirements and conditions, nor does it establish that admission for membership is judged by 
recognized national or international experts. 
Association and the The Petitioner provided similar certifications from the 
I I Association. The certi~fi-c-at-io-n----~--------~ 
Association president indicates that~---------~ is "the~---------~ 
of the association and that the Petitioner, as chairman of the company, has been appointed 
as "th ~--------~ of the association's council and elected as director of a committee 
by the association's member companies. The letter mentions his contributions and reputation in the 
industry, but does not discuss the association's requirements or review processes and procedures for 
company membership, does not mention whether the association admits individual members, and does 
not address the established criteria and processes used to appoint or elect individuals to leadersrup 
positions. As such the Petitioner has not provided the information needed to establish that he has a 
qualifying membership in the I !Association. The certification letter from the 
.__ __________ ___. Association states that the Petitioner was elected by the 60 member 
companies of the organization to serve as'.__ __________ ___. in 2019, but does not offer 
any additional information regarding the association, its membership requirements for individuals (if 
applicable), and its requirements pertaining to elected officers, nor does it provide information as to 
whether outstanding achievements as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts are 
an essential condition for membership or elected positions. 
6 
A "letter of certification" from the I I Market Supervision and Administration Bureau 
confirms that the Petitioner was hired as "a supervisor for the political and business ethical operations 
carried out by the bureau," but does not explain how being hired forth is position is equivalentto being 
admitted as a member of an association that requires outstanding achievements as an essential 
condition for membership. Although the bureau's letter states that it assessed potential supervisors 
based on factors such as their "industry representativeness" and "personal, professional and technical 
achievements" among other factors, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's 
supervisor role with this bureau satisfies the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence discussed above "explained the requirements for 
membership," but for the reasons explained, this assertion is not persuasive. While the Petitioner 
submitted a brief ce1iification letter from each association in which he claims membership, the 
evidence does not address all elements of the regulation at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and is insufficient 
to demonstrate that he has a qualifying membership in an association that requires its members to have 
outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. Most or all the 
industry associations in which he claims membership appear to only admit company members. While 
the Petitioner's appointed or elected leadership positions are notable, the evidence does not 
demonstrate the formal requirements or processes related to these elections, and we cannot conclude 
that these roles satisfy the regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the.field/or which classtfication 
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 D. irector acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted several articles from the newsjaper Henan 
Daily, however, he determined that the articles are primarily aboutl rather than 
about the Petitioner. The Director also found insufficient evidence to establish that Henan Daily, 
based on the circulation figures submitted, is a major trade publication or otherwise qualifies as a 
major media. Finally, the Director observed that the Petitioner provided circulation data for The 
Washington Post and Boston Globe, but emphasized that he did not provide evidence that he had been 
featured in either of these publications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that "any article about the company, especially since each one 
quotes [the Petitioner], is actually about the [Petitioner], since he is functionally the company." The 
Petitioner emphasizes that he is the company's founder, inventor of its proprietary tech no logy and the 
public face of the company. The Petitioner also maintains that sufficient evidence was submitted to 
establish that Henan Daily qualifies as a major media publication rather than a mere "local 
publication," noting that the circulation statistics for two U.S. metropolitan newspapers with national 
circulation were provided as a basis for comparison. 
In support of his claim thatHenan Daily qualifies as major media, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot 
from the newspaper's website that provides an introduction to the publication, noting that it has a daily 
circulation of 530,000 copies, is "the official newspaper of the Henan Provincial Party Committee of 
the Communist Party of China," and that it "covers all the provinces and cities under the jurisdiction 
7 
ofHenan Province and all counties and districts." A letter fromHenan Daily journalist! I I !describes the newspaper as "the most prestigious and influential newspaper in Henan province 
with the highest circulation, unparalleled prestige, and tremendous social influence." Finally, the 
Petitioner submitted the above-referenced circulation information for The WashingtonPostandBoston 
Globe, noting that both newspapers "are recognized as having significant national distribution" despite 
having lower circulation numbers than HencmDaily. 
To establish thatHenan Daily constitutes major media, the Petitioner would need to provide objective 
evidence demonstrating that its circulation is high compared to the circulation statistics of other daily 
newspapers in the Chinese market. 4 Here, the Petitioner provided the newspaper's self-published daily 
circulation figure without providing any context of where that figure ranks among its peer publications 
in China. Comparisons to the circulation of two U.S. newspapers is considerably less relevant in 
demonstrating how Henan Daily qualifies as major media in China. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that Henan Daily qualifies as major 
media. 
As noted, the Director also determined that the submitted articles are not about the Petitioner and that 
some of them did not identify the author of the published material, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
We note that several of the submitted articles from Henan Daily are similar in content, discussing the 
history o~ l milestones it has reached, the industry in which it operates, and the 
company's recent financial performance and activities. The earliest of the submitted articles, from 
December 4, 2015, does not identify the author of the article. The article includes one brief mention 
of the Petitioner, identifies him as the company's chairman, and ends with an indirect quote, attributed 
to him, about the company's plans for 2016. The second article, published on June 1, 2016, provides 
similar information regarding the company and its services, identifies the Petitioner as the chairman, 
and includes one quote from him. We note that the Petitioner and his leadership of the company are 
not the focus or subject of either of these articles. A third Hen an Daily article, published on May 31, 
2017, mention~ I. 's major customers, its 2016 financial results, its recent projects, 
and its collaborations with other companies. The only mention of the Petitioner comes in the last 
sentence of the translated article. This sentence a ears to be the caption for a photograph that 
accom anies the article. It states " t he chairman of the Petitioner I I 
[sic],~----------------------------~' As with 
the two preceding articles, we cannot conclude that this article is about the Petitioner. 
Anotherarticle ublishedinHenanDailyonJuly 19,2018,andtitled j I 
~-----------.====<--;;;;is::.....;about the 1 I' award launched by 
the newspaper to commemorat ~--~of entrepreneurship in Henan province. The Petitioner's 
photograph, name, and company affiliation appear in the article, as he was one of 40 entrepreneurs 
selected, but the article does not include any additional information about him and is not about him. 
In addition, this article does not include a byline or otherwise identify the name of the author. 
4 See 6 USCISPolicy Manual,supra, atF.2 appendix. 
8 
The remaining article, published in August 2018 and titled 
I I identifies the source as H enan Economic Daily, a~p_u_b_l-ic-a-ti_o_n_f __ o_r_w_h_1_· c_h_n_o_a_d_d-it-io_n_a~l 
information has been provided. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that this article was 
published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. It is similar in content to 
the articles from Hen an Daily, as it discusses the company's history, milestones, performance, recent 
projects and anticipated future activities. This article mentions that the Petitioner founded the company 
in 1998, identifies him as the cmrent chai1man, and includes one quote from him. 
Even if the Petitioner had established that the submitted articles appeared in professional, major trade 
publications or other major media, we agree with the Director's determination that, although he is 
referenced, the articles are not about the Petitioner and do not otherwise meet this regulatory criterion. 
While the Petitioner argues that any article abou~ I is about him because he is 
"functionally the company," the aiiicles do not p01iray him in this light or go beyond briefly 
mentioning his name and his position within the company. The Petitioner also maintains that the 
Director's analysis "fails to consider longstanding law about publications in this context, referring to 
Muniv. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995). However, we observe that there is nothing in Muni to 
suggest that an article need only include an individual's name and occupation to be "about" that 
individual, regardless of the context or the remaining content of that article. 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original contributions 
to the field, but also that those contributions have been of major significance. For example, a petitioner 
may show that the 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. 
In evaluating the criterion, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted five letters of 
reference but determined that the letters "did not conform"to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) 
and therefore "off er no probative value." The Director also referenced evidence relating to the 
Petitioner's patents, noting that a patent alone is insufficient to meet this criterion and that "the 
contribution of the innovation to the field as a whole must be determined by USCIS on a case-by-case 
basis." The Director concluded that there was "no evidence" that the Petitioner's patents had resulted 
in significant commercial sales or had an impact on researchers in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the five expert letters that the Director disregarded were 
specifically submitted to explain the significance of the patents and his original contributions to the 
field. The Petitioner argues that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) applies to experience letters 
submitted in support of employment-based immigrant petitions in which an individual is required to 
document prior work experience and does not apply to letters submitted to establish that an individual 
has made original contributions of major significance consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
We agree that the Director did not have a valid basis for disregarding the letters of reference submitted 
in support of this criterion and will consider this evidence along with evidence related to patents issued 
9 
to.__ ________ __,, which list the Petitioner as an inventor. The Petitioner's initial evidence 
include a chart listing 42 patents, including their application/patent number, invention title, patent 
type, date of application and date of authorization. 5 The evidence shows that the utility model patents 
list the Petitioner as inventor and have been assigned to~--------~ or related subsidiary 
cornpames. 
The Petitioner provided a reference letter fro whq states tbat be is the Director and 
Chief Physician of th o inl I I I explains 
the medical use o and states that thel I 
produced b ,__ ______ _."are essential to the medical industry in thel : , I' noting 
that the cornpan is the rovince's lar est roducer o The Petitioner also submitted 
an article titled ' published by the website of a U.S. 
corn an in the.__ _______ __. While we do not doubt the medical field's reliance on~ 
~..---~~----..___,' s letter does not explain how~------~ s supply of industry-standard L_J 
t medical facilities amounts to an "original contribution" in the field, or how the company's 
products have impacted the field outside of the province. He also does not refer to any of 
~
1 
t_h_p_a-
1
t_e_n-ts~that list the Petitioner as inventor or the significance of any of those patents in the I I 
field. The fact that the Petitioner's company supplies cornrnonl I products for which 
there is an acknowledged demand is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
The Petitio,µ............,...,_,,,_--'-'-'-'""-'-........ ""'--"L.l.><""""' ......... ..,,,_,_.~--......,....-____,...,.,..who states that he is the Deputy Technical 
Director fo and a member of several technical committees relating to 1he 
I I industry, including storage and transportation. In his letter he raises the 
Petitioner as a leader in thd I field, provides a list of industries in whic.1....r-----,____J 
Corn an 'sQroducts are used, and emphasizes that many important industries in and 
the rovince "rely on [ the Petitioner's] proprietary production and distribution processes." 
,___~also credits the Petitioner with personally organizing research and development projects "that 
have directly led to creation of critical devices," noting that such technologies are "now routinely used 
in the production and distribution of essential~---------~-~ He lists eight 
technologies or devices which appear to correspond to devices included on the submitted utility model 
patent list. However, he does not further describe or discuss these contributions ortheiruses or specify 
how they have had an impact or influence on the overall field. His general assertion that these devices 
are "routinely used" in the field is insufficient to establish their major significance. 
The Petition.r's initial evidence inrlud~d a letter from! I a professor at thel I 
University o1~. ---------~Jand Director of the I I Research 
Council. He does not state that he has any expertise or background in the Petitioner's field or indicate 
on what basis he is able to discuss the Petitioner's original contributions in the 
I !field.I I provides general information abou~ l._an_d_s_t-at_e_s -th_a_t t-h-el=='I 
produced by the company "is used in numerous industries" and "is essential to companies throughout 
I I because "they need I l[the company] produces to operate." He also discusses the 
company's research and development efforts, noting that "the company has multiple laboratories 
where experts design new techniques to make the use otl O 1 J by their client companies far 
5 The chart lists a total of 42 applications filed, of which 41 are identified as being of the "utility model" type and one i<; 
identified as an "inventorpatent." At the time the chart was prepared, 10 of the applications had not yet been approved. 
more efficient." Lastly, he credits the Petitioner with creating "a newl . !technology for the glass 
industry" that "increases discharge amounts by I 0-3 0%, reducing quality problems and decreasing the 
amount of bubbles in the glass." He does not further discuss this technology, indicate whether it is 
patented or how it is otherwise considered to be original, or address its importance and how it has 
already had an impact or influence of major significance in the industry. 
The fourth letter of reference was provided b~ la professor at the I I I I who states that he is "a recognized expert in air ollution control, catalysis and porous 
materials." He describes the Petitioner as '·a leader in the develo ment" and raises his 
commitment to research and development of proprietary technology at.___-,------~~----,., 
indicates that the Petitioner's specific achievements include "creation of.__ ____ ....------, 
technologies and D displacement and storage technologies in cooperation with the 
I I and the I lfield." He emphasizes that, base'-d-on_t_h-ei ..... r 
"groundbreaking" nature, these and other projects were recognized through receipt ofFirst and Second 
prizes fotj 00 0 I in thel I province. However, as discussed above, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner or his company received these awards. Further, although 
the Petitioner emphasizes that the reference letters provide explain how his patents qualify as original 
contributions of major significanceJ l's letter does not make any specific references to the 
Petitioner's patents. 
The final letter submitted in su ort of this criterion is from who states that he has 
served as the President of th..,_ _____ -,_ ____________ ~ _______ __, 
and as Senior Ex ert for the described as "the world's largest 
states th4tl 7 has workeLd_w-it~=--=--=-~---~,_on_"...Ja 
._s_u_c_c_e-ss_f_u:_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_~-=_-=_-=_-:_-:_-=_~~-s-y-st__,em for th d .... _____ ~f"rield that will achieve long-te1m 
I lonservation an ~--~reduction." He also states that the Petitioner has created "exciting 
engineering application services for th9 I inqustrv" He desclribes one of these applicationsj 
noting that the Petitioner has introduced the use of I . to neutralize the ..,.I, ___ ____._ 
traditiona11¥ relied on strong acids to treat wastewater. ~--~explains tha~ I 
wastewater noting that these industrie; have 
I ]and through an automatic operation injects the wastewater to reduce itsl " He 
describes the technique as "an elegant solution" that is ultimately safer and more cost-effective than 
using strong acids, and notes that this technology "is rapidly replacing the conventional acid 
treatment." However, he does not specify whether the technique was created by the Petitioner or if he 
was simply the first to introduce it in his region, nor does he further elaborate on how widespread or 
influential the technique has become. 
The Petitioner maintains that "many of the concepts that [he] introduced are now industry standards 
in the industrial! I in China," but neither the letters discussed above nor the list of patents held 
b~ I provide sufficient support for this assertion regarding the widespread 
~ct of his original work. The record shows that the Petitioner has built a successfuII I 
L__J company that appears to serve as a supp lier for many industries inl._ _ ____.l province, and that he 
has been credited with developing some of the company's proprietarytechnology. However, notevety 
patented device or technique is an original contribution of major significance within the meaning of 
this criterion. Here, the patents, letters and other supporting evidence indicate that the Petitioner's 
company has been recognized for its innovation and steady growth, but are not sufficient to 
11 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's contributions have been widely implemented or otherwise had a 
major impact on the industry in which the company operates. Letters that specifically articulate how 
a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 The letters that praised the 
Petitioner for his professional achievements withl l but do not demonstrate their 
major significance in the field. The plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in 
the field" requires evidence ofan impact beyond one's employerand clients or customers. See Vis inscaia 
v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 2013). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field. The Petitioner provided 
an accountant-prepared "income certificate" which provides recent financial figures including his 
personal annual salary (including salary, bonus and allowances), his dividend income earned as a result 
of his partial ownership ofi I, his income from "personal real estate disposition," 
and financial information regarding the company's sales, costs, profits and undistributed profits. In 
an accompanying letter, the Petitioner emphasized that, although he takes a "nominal salary," his 
equity irl I equates to over $2 million. 
The Petitioner did not submit comparative evidence to demonstrate that his salary is high, or that his 
total remuneration is significantly high, in comparison to that of others employed in his occupation 
and geographic area. 7 Rather, he provided evidence from the U.S. Department of Labor-sponsored 
CareerOneStopwebsite (www.careeronestop.org), indicating that a "high" salary for a chief executive 
in the United States is "$208,000+" annually. Although the Petitioner relies on this document as 
evidence that his total earnings are high, the base salaries of U.S. executives do not provide an 
appropriate comparison for the total remuneration of a chief executive and shareholder who resides 
and works inl I China. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter froml l's chief financial officer, who 
provides inf mmation regarding the percentage of company shares owned by the Petitioner (both 
individually and jointly with his family) and notes that he was entitled to significant undistributed 
profits which he instead opted to reserve for the future operation of the company. In his brief, the 
Petitioner notes that he was entitled to receive undistributed profits of over $1.5 million in 201 7, $1.75 
million in 2018, and $2.1 million in 2019. However, the record continues to lack comparative salaty 
and total remuneration data specific to the Petitioner's occupation and geographic location. Even if 
6 See 6 USCIS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2 appendix 
7 Id. (stating that persons working in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable 
evidence in that country, ra therthan by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salmy 
would be considered high in the United States). 
12 
the Petitioner demonstrated that he received income in the stated amounts, we would still require a 
basis to compare his total remuneration to that of other executives in China. 
Without providing a proper basis for comparison of his salary and/or total remuneration in relation to 
others in China, the Petitioner has not established that he has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services. Accordingly, he did not demonstrate that he satisfies this 
criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
We conclude that the Petitioner has established that he meets only one of the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), of which he must meet at least three to satisfy the initial evidence 
requirement for this classification. As this dete1mination is dis positive of the appeal, we reserve and 
will not address the Director's separate determination that he did not demonstrate that he seeks to enter 
the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, as required by section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(5). 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 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 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. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his 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, l 990);see also section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
g Sec INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessaiyto the results they reach). 
13