dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8088205 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 2, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive and entrepreneur in the industrial lubricants industry, seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of business. 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 that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirement of either receiving a major, 
internationally-recognized award or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder and president of Lubricants Technology 
I L a producer of China. He earned a 
bachelor's degree in economics fro"-'L-----=~-.---------,,-------'College, and an executive 
master of business administration degree from~-~--- Graduate School of Business. He 
indicates that he intends to continue working "as a scientist, researcher, and entrepreneur in the 
........_ ______ _.lubricants field in the United States." 
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 Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his authorship of published scholarly articles and his 
leading role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
he also meets four additional evidentiary criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets the two criteria he 
identified in his decision. Specifically, the record includes evidence that the Petitioner coauthored 
three articles which were published in professional journals, and that he served in a leading role for 
c===J as its founder and president since 2009. In addition, the record sufficiently establishes 
l_ __ _Js distinguished reputation in thel I lubrication industry. 
2 
However, we disagree with the Director regarding the evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a 
judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Director found in his decision that 
"experience as a teacher/professor grading students" does not qualify under this criterion since such 
activity does not demonstrate that his achievements have been recognized in the field. As the 
Petitioner notes on appeal, the record does not contain evidence that he has worked as a professor, but 
was instead appointed to serve on committees evaluating thesis projects for students in the graduate 
chemical engineering program at thel !University of Technology. This evidence satisfies the 
plain language requirements of this criterion, and whether it serves to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
has received sustained acclaim at the national or international level is an issue to be determined within 
a final merits determination. 
We note that the Petitioner submits new evidence on appeal in support of the additional criteria he 
asserts that he meets, as well as his intentions to continue working in his field of endeavor in the United 
States. However, where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has 
been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for 
the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Here, the Director notified the Petitioner of several deficiencies in the 
record in his request for evidence (RFE), and requested additional evidence of the type that the 
Petitioner now submits. We will therefore not consider this evidence when making our determination. 
Because the Petitioner has established that he meets the requisite three evidentiary criteria, he has 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements, and we need not consider whether he meets the additional 
criteria as asserted in his appeal brief Rather, we will consider the evidence submitted in support of 
those criteria, together with the balance of the record, to determine whether he possesses the level of 
sustained acclaim and standing in his field to establish his eligibility as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his 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. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are 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. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
In the section of his appeal brief addressing the final merits determination, the Petitioner first focuses 
on his role as an innovator, stressing his leadership of the research and development team at I I 
that developed lubricants and other products, some of which were patented in China. He asserts that 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (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). 
3 
these products "perform better than cojpeting pf°ducts on many fronts," and that these innovations 
have made the company a leader in the lubricants sector in China. However, although the 
patents granted in China on these products confirm their oritinality on the national level, the 
Petitioner's assertions regarding their performance andl Js leadership in the industry are not 
supported by the record. His initial filing included several reference letters from experts in the 
economics and chemical engineering fields.2 For example,~-------~ofthe Department 
of Economics at University indicates in his letter that he knows the Petitioner through the 
Chamber of Commerce, and that he is "a unique and highly skilled researcher and 
~i_nn_o_v_a-to_r __ ,-, -A-lt~hough I I does not claim expertise regarding the industrial lubricant 
industry in China, he states that the Petitioner's work "has ignited the I I lubricant industry in 
China," and that he "laid the foundation for a newl I lubricant industry in China." 
Another reference letter was written byl I ofi I University of Science 
and Technology, who describes the properties of~ lgrease and an oil for use in air 
compressors which were developed by the Petitioner and his company, and concludes that these 
products outperform competitors. He also states that due to the Petitioner's efforts in forming 
partnerships with suppliers of raw materials, "China now has a growmg industry of I I 
lubricants." 
However, these statements regarding the Petitioner's innovation and I Is industry leadership 
are not corroborated elsewhere in the record. For example, the Petitioner states in his appeal that when 
considering the significance of his original contributions to the field, the Director erred in finding that 
his innovations had not been implemented by scientists in the field. We agree that in the context of 
thd !lubrication industry in whichl I competes, business-related factors such as market 
share would be a more appropriate gauge of the significance of the Petitioner's innovations and 
business leadership. However, the record does not include evidence demonstrating that his 
contributions have led to the industry-wide impacts asserted in the letters. The Petitioner oints to 
evidence thatl I was a qualified supplier of lubricants toL....r---,_ _________ ____J 
I , l which the record indicates is the energy provider for the~-~ area, for the 2019 calendar 
year, as well as an approved supplier to I I Although the Petitioner submitted 
copies of announcements from both companies seeking bids for wind turbine! loil for a total of 
1 70 wind turbines, the record does not include evidence that won these bids, or that doing 
so would have placed it in a leading position in the~--~ lubricant industry in terms of market 
share. 
The Petitioner also submitted financial statements for I I for 201 7. We first note that although 
the evidence indicates that this information is taken from the company's annual report, it does not 
include a statement concerning whether the statements were audited or reviewed, and therefore must 
be considered as the unverified statements of management. Further, a review of the figures represented 
in the statement shows that the company experienced a significant financial loss in that and the 
preceding year, and the record does not include comparative evidence to corroborate the assertions of 
I Ps standing in the field in terms of product sales or market share. 
2 All reference letters in the record have been thoroughly reviewed and considered, including those not specifically 
mentioned in this decision. 
4 
Other evidence in the record regarding I ~s place in the industry under the Petitioner's 
leadership include a self-generated list comparing the number of patents licensed by the company 
versus some of its competitors, and evidence of awards received by the company. Regarding the 
number of patents, although this evidence shows thatl I has been more active than some of its 
competitors in filing and securing patents, we note that this list does not include some of the company's 
traditional competitors named elsewhere in the record. Similar to the evidence reviewed above, and 
considered together with that evidence, it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has lead his company 
to an industry-leading position as asserted, and therefore does not establish that the Petitioner is one 
of the very few entrepreneurs at the top of the business field. 
As for the awards receTed bvl I ) these include nine certificates stating that specific products 
have been identified as ' High-Tech Achievements Transf~atiol ;~1ject." Other evidence 
in the record indicates that the awarding of these certificates entitles financial support from 
a municipal fund, but does not otherwise suggest recognition for or, by extension, the 
Petitioner as the company's leader. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence of the Petitioner's position with an additional company,~!-~ 
I ~ Lubricants Material Technology Ltd.I ~- A letter from a 
human resources executive states that he has been employed with the company since 2009 as executive 
director, but then indicates somewhat confusingly that he has been employed "for at least one 
continuous year within the past 9 years." Also included is an extensive translation of the company's 
website, as well as copies of four sales contracts between North Europe and its clients. While this 
evidence indicates that the Petitioner "worked for at least one continuous year" for this company in a 
leadership position, and that the company was doing business in 201 7, it does not show that his 
association with North Europe garnered acclaim for the Petitioner or places him as a leading 
entrepreneur. 
Additional reference letters in the record indicate that the Petitioner has played a role in the 
development of two other companies in the industry through strategic business partnerships. For 
example.__ _______ _.ofl I Institute of Technology writes that I I entered into 
a strategic business partnership with these companies, helping one of them to establish its own research 
and development system and develop new lubricant products. However, the Petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence about or from either of these companies to support these assertions about his 
company's partnership with them or any resulting success they have enjoyed. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of a leadership role for a different type of entity, the~I --~ 
I !Graduate School of Business' j I Alumni Association for the western United States. This 
includes a certificate showing his appointment as the "Joint Chairman of the first session of Service 
Team" of the association in December 2015. A letter from I I describes the purpose the alumni 
association, and confirms the Petitioner's invitation to join the alumni council due to his "excellent 
personal reputation" and "great influence among alumni." Additional evidence also includes 
information about I I and its reputation as a graduate business school, as well as meetings held 
by the alumni association co-chaired by the Petitioner. While this evidence demonstrates his 
leadership role for a chapter of the I 1:ilumni association, it does establish that he was invited to 
this position due to national or international acclaim as an innovator or entrepreneur, or that this 
activity places him as one of the few at the top of the field of business. 
5 
The record also includes evidence of awards the Petitioner has received for his work as an innovator 
and entrepreneur. In his decision, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) because he did not submit national or international media coverage of the 
awards he received. Although such evidence is persuasive in documenting any national or 
international recognition of an award, as well showing that the Petitioner has earned national or 
international acclaim, we agree with the Petitioner that requiring that type of evidence goes beyond 
the plain language of the criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner refers to two articles he previously 
submitted which describe the events during which the awards were issued, and notes that they were 
attended by "distinguished national figures ... from the highest levels of China's government business, 
and scientific communities." The first of these awards appearing in the record is the' Scientific 
and Technological Innovation Leading Figure" certificate received by the Petitioner at the.__ __ ___. 
Scientists Forum" inl I 2018. According to the certificate and supporting documentation 
from the forum's website, the awarding organizations included business associations and a national 
journal for business managers in the technology sector. Two articles posted on Chinese web portals, 
accompanied by incomplete English translations, confirm attendance by government officials and 
"more than 900 scientists, science and technology managers, science and technology experts, and 
entrepreneurs from all over the country ... " However, neither article mentions any awards given at 
this event. In addition, the agenda for the forum mentions only one award specifically, the "Special 
Contribution Award," and briefly mentions that "science and technology award activity will also be 
launched." Absent additional information regarding the award received by the Petitioner, such as the 
number and level of awards granted at the forum, and the criteria for selecting the awardees, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner garnered national or international acclaim through his receipt of 
this award. 
The other award highlighted by the Petitioner in his initial submission is a certificate titled "Honorary 
Credential" which states that he is awarded the title of 
I I at the 20161 !Economic Summit Forum. A~n-art_i_c-le_p_o_s_t-ed_o_n_a_n_o_th_e_r_w_e_b_p_o_rt_a~l 
notes that several awards were given to entrepreneurs at this meeting, and includes the names of those 
who received the "Special Award" (four awardees) and "Economic Personages of the Year" (ten 
awardees ). It then lists six categories of "other" awards, including the award received by the 
Petitioner, without listing the names of the awardees in the main text of the article. 3 The Petitioner 
stresses that this article includes a list of Chinese government and industry officials who attended the 
awards ceremony, but we note that many of the individuals listed are current or former employees of 
the sponsoring organizations. In addition, although the Petitioner provides evidence about the portal 
on which this article is posted, sohu.com, which consists of the company's own overview which is 
targeted toward potential investors, this evidence does not demonstrate that this single article posted 
on one of the portal's many websites is indicative of widespread recognition of this award. The 
Petitioner has therefore not established that the award he received was recognized beyond the attendees 
of this event and the award sponsors. 
The record also includes certificates showing that the Petitioner received two additional awards: the 
Invention and Entrepreneur Achievement A ward I I from the I I Association of 
Inventions inl ~018, and the Excellent Project Award fo~ I Industry-University-
3 The names of all 74 awardees, including the Petitioner's, were attached as an appendix to the article. We note that the 
complete translation of this article was only submitted on appeal. 
6 
Research Cooperation! I also inl 12018. Each certificate is accompanied by 
information about the awards from the issuing organizations' websites. The information from the 
I !Association oflnventions describes the nomination procedure, but does not indicate the number 
of awards issues or explain the different levels of the award. Regarding the Excellent Project Award, 
the evidence indicates that it is limited to enterprises registered in I I and that three I I 
I I were issued in 2018. 4 
The Petitioner also stresses on appeal that he has "proven his influence on the field" through his 
authorship of scholarly articles. The record includes two scholarly articles co-authored by the 
Petitioner which were published in the journal Lubrication Engineering, and another published in 
Lubricating Oil. He also submitted evidence showing that these three articles have been cited by 
others in their own published work on one occasion, and downloaded dozens of times. This evidence 
does not demonstrate that other innovators or entrepreneurs in the field of business have frequently 
applied or implemented the Petitioner's work, either in their own published research or in practice, or 
that this research has shown the Petitioner's influence or otherwise established him as one of the small 
percentage at the top of his field. 
As noted above, the record establishes that the Petitioner has served as an "Enterprise Tutor" for 
~ts in the postgraduate chemical engineering department atl I Institute of Technology 
L_J since December 2016, despite not having a degree in chemical engineering. In this role, he 
served on the dissertation defense committee for at least three students in 2019. This evidence shows 
that as a respected member of the business community, he has played a role in the development of 
individual students. However, the evidence does not establish that he has garnered acclaim through 
this activity due to the frequency or level at which he has performed this work, and/or the reputation 
of0 
Also, the Petitioner submitted evidence regarding his role as an investment consultant for the 
government of I I in the province ofl I China, which the evidence indicates 
included setting up an incubator and industrial park for technology crmpan,es. Although the Petitioner 
appears to have been given a large amount of responsibility by the government to initiate and 
oversee this project, the evidence does not show that it had achieved a significant level of development 
or success at the time of filing, or that the project and the Petitioner's leadership of it had been 
acclaimed at the national or international level. 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence that he has established and ledl I to successfully develop 
~--~I grease and lubricant products, but the record does not support his assertions to have made 
an impact on the overall industry in China, or that he has otherwise achieved national or international 
acclaim for his work. While he has been recognized for his work as an innovator and businessperson 
through personal awards for entrepreneurship, and his reputation in his field has led to appointments 
with several local or regional organizations, the totality of the evidence does not establish that the 
Petitioner is one of the small percentage at the top of his field. 
4 We note that while the certificate lists the Petitioner's name and does not mentio11I I the list on the organization's 
website listsl I as the winner and includes a blank field titled "Winning Individual." This discrepancy should be 
addressed in any further proceedings in this matter. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
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, 1990); 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 that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
8