dismissed EB-1A Case: Release Film And Membrane Coating Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 3, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner claims to be "an internationally renowned businessman and scientist" and seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of "release film and membrane 
coating technology." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied one of the initial ten evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets at least three criteria and maintains that he qualifies 
for the classification. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of G-L-
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, 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, 1119-20 
(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, 1343 (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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to be an extraordinary businessman and scientist in "the field of release film and 
membrane coating technology." In his July 2017 statement, he stated that he intends to "promote the 
development of photoelectric film industry in the United States." In response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), he offered documents showing that he registered Inc., with the 
California Secretary of State in . 2018. He presented a business plan, noting that he formed "[the 
business] to develop and establish a successful production and sales company that will specialize in 
producing high-end release liners (or release films) and thin films, both commonly used and needed 
by the liquid crystal display (LCD) industry here in the U.S. and around the world." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record supports this conclusion. Specifically, the Petitioner has 
offered evidence confirming that he has authored scholarly articles that were published in professional 
journals , including c1 'that appeared 
in Chinese Journal of Materials Research, and ' _ 
that appeared in Gansu Science and Technology. While he has satisfied one 
criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), as we will discuss below, he has not demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, 1 that he meets the initial evidence requirements of satisfying at least 
three criteria. 
1 If a petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably true," the petitioner has satisfied the 
2 
.
Matter of G-L-
A Regulatory Criteria. 2 
Documentation of the alien '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). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because of his company's accolades. Specifically, 
he submitted in his initial filing two "Certificate[s] of High and New Technology Product," dated 
November 2009 and September 2013, respectively, that were issued by the " Science and 
Technology Department," each noting a 5-year validity period. They list _ 
Ltd., as the "Undertaken Unit," but do not reference the Petitioner by name. According to a June 2017 
letter from the director of academic committee in the College of Materials Science and 
Engineering at -~ University in China, the Petitioner's company won the certificate when "529 
types of innovative thin materials were submitted to compete for the title of 'High and New 
Technology Product' in 2009." 
The Petitioner has also offered evidence showing that , Ltd., was named the 
"National High and New Technology Enterprise" by China's "Ministry of Science and Technology 
" "Ministry of Finance -~ ," "State Administration 
of Taxation ," and ' Local Taxation Bureau." The award specified a validity 
period of three years. He, citing the websites innocom.gov.cn and most.gov.en, claimed in his initial 
filing that "[t]his award is regarded as the highest certification for technology enterprises in China" 
and "is part of China's torch program that is a guidance program for developing Chinese high-tech 
industry." In an April 2018 letter, -· -whose resume indicates that he is "an academician 
of the Chinese Academy of Engineering" - stated that the Petitioner's company "was the only one 
selected" for the award "among more than 800 thin film production enterprises nationwide competing 
for the title in 2014. 
The record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. Initially, he has not 
demonstrated his receipt of a prize or award. Rather, the recipient of the accolades was 
Ltd. According to an April 2018 letter from a shareholder, executive 
vice president, and deputy general manager of the company, the Petitioner has been its chief executive 
officer since 2007. Assuming arguendo that in light of his role in and involvement with the business, 
he could be considered the recipient of the 2009 and 2013 certificates and the 2014 award, he has 
nonetheless not shown that they are qualifying under the criterion. 
While a number of reference letters allege that the accolades are nationally recognized, the record is 
insufficient to substantiate this assertion. The issuing entities listed on the certificates and award are 
provincial organizations. The 2009 and 2013 certificates were from Science and Technology 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof. USC IS 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 ADJJ -14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i -140-evidence­
pm-6002-005-l.pdf. 
2 The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not demonstrate , that he has received a major, internationa lly 
recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). As such, he must provide documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to satisfy the initial evidence requirements. We will discuss in this 
decision the criteria that the Petitioner claims he meets or for which he has submitted relevant evidence. 
3 
.
Matter of G-L-
Department, and the 2014 award was from various provincial bureaus. According to the 2013 ' 
Province High-Tech Product Certification Regulations," which the Petitioner submitted with his 
petition, companies may apply for "the identification of high-tech products in Province," the 
"Provincial Department of Science and Technology will [then] organize regular expert consultations 
and give approval for qualified products," and issue the certificates. This document does not support 
the Petitioner's claim that the 2009 and 2013 certificates - which are provincial in nature and could 
be awarded to multiple companies each year - are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field, as required under the criterion. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown that the 2014 award qualifies under the criterion. The record 
lacks evidence from the award issuing entity, establishing that Ltd., 
received the award in recognition for its excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner has also 
not offered sufficient documentation demonstrating that this accolade, which is from a province entity, 
is recognized outside of the organization, on a national or international level. In light of the above, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion because he is an "expert member" of the 
He has submitted a document that discusses the organization and 
qualifications for its individual members. This document, however, does not explain how someone 
becomes an "expert member" or demonstrates that the organization requires "outstanding 
achievements" from its members. The record includes a March 2018 letter from who was 
the executive director of the organization between 2012 and 2016. He indicated that to qualify as an 
expert member, an individual must be recognized for "achieving multiple significant research result[ s ], 
for [his or her] ability to independently invent, create, and innovate, for [his or her] ability and talent 
to evaluate, guide and set research and development directions in [a] specific field and discipline of 
chemical industry." The organization's membership materials, however, do not substantiate 
statements. Regardless, the Petitioner has not shown that the expert membership requirements, 
as alleged by constitute "outstanding achievements ... as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields," as required by the criterion. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's membership in the does not 
satisfy this criterion. According to a document from the organization, an individual is qualified to join 
the association if he or she: "(l) Advocate[s] Articles of the Association; (2) Ha[s] the will to join in 
the Association; [and] (3) Ha[s] certain impact in business fields (industry, discipline) of the 
Association." The record includes a March 2018 letter from , the vice president and executive 
director of the association, who provided that "certain impact" means that an applicant must have 
received recommendation from the association 's director, published at least 2 professional essays, 
been granted patents, and been in the semiconductor or related field for 5 years. While these 
requirements show that an applicant must be active and productive in the field, the Petitioner has not 
established that they confirm the association "require[s] outstanding achievements of [its] members, 
4 
.
Matter of G-L-
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields," as required by 
the criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not shown that Ltd.' s "membership unit" in the 
China Optics and Optoelectronics Manufactures Association satisfies this criterion. The "Membership 
Unit" certificate does not identify the Petitioner as a member. Documents from the association do not 
specify how an individual could become a member. Rather, they indicate that the association accepts 
only "enterprises and institutions" as members. While a March 2018 letter from an 
executive vice president of the association, provides that the Petitioner became a member "[b ]ecause 
of [his] contribution to the industry and his expertise in release film and membrane technology," the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentation detailing the criteria and procedure under which 
an individual becomes a member of the association. Without additional corroboration, he has not 
established that he is a member of the association or that the association "require[s] outstanding 
achievements of [its] members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields," as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). In light of the above, the Petitioner 
has not met this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '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, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field. Major significance in the field may be shown 
through evidence that his research findings or original methods or processes have been widely 
accepted and implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or 
have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. See USCIS 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 ADll-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/defaul t/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-
1. pdf. 
The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). He has offered evidence showing that he has received patents for his inventions. 
Evidence of patents shows that he has been involved in original research, but the record does not 
confirm that his inventions constitute contributions of major significance in the field. For example, 
he has not demonstrated that his inventions have impacted, influenced, or advanced the field to a level 
consistent with major significance. 
While the record includes a number of reference letters, they do not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
According to a July 2017 letter from the vice president of . for Asian regional sales, 
"the raw material of touch screen control protective film applied by and 
Ltd., is developed & invented by [the Petitioner] and produced by 
' indicated that products are "assembled in the factory 
of Ltd." He further stated that he believed "products 
of _______ 1 Ltd., are also supplied to ----~ " s letter shows that 
5 
.
Matter of G-L-
the Petitioner's work has had some impact in the field and his inventions has been used in the field, 
but the record is insufficient to show that the level of the impact and use in the field are remarkable 
and widespread, rising to the level of contributions of major significance. 
The reference letters, including those not specifically discussed in this decision, and other evidence in 
the record show that the Petitioner's work has added to the general pool of knowledge in the field. 
They are, however, insufficient to confirm widespread commentary or acceptance of his findings, the 
field has regarded his work as authoritative, or it has advanced the field in a significant way. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). Letters that repeat the 
regulatory language but do not sufficiently explain how an individual's contributions have already 
influenced the field significantly are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F. 3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F. 3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of the 
above, the Petitioner has not shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner states that he satisfies this criterion because of his role as the general manager of 
Ltd. According to the Petitioner "played a leading and critical role 
in the research and development of [the company's] total 16 patents covering product and product 
related production technologies and devices." provided that the Petitioner "is the sole inventor 
for all 16 patents in recognition of his hands-on involvement and direction setting in the process of 
invention." In light of this letter as well as other documents in the record, the Petitioner has shown 
that he has performed a leading or critical role for this entity. 
Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies this criterion 
because the record is insufficient to demonstrate that Ltd., has a 
distinguished reputation. The Petitioner has presented evidence relating to the company, including 
documents showing that it has received a number of utility model patents as well as certificates and 
awards from provincial organizations, and it has supplied component parts to and 
products. These documents indicate that the business is active and successful, but they are insufficient 
to demonstrate it has a distinguished reputation. 
Although the record includes reference letters praising Ltd., they do not 
point to documents provided that substantiate the entity's reputation. For example, a July 2017 letter 
from an acting chief executive officer of r Ltd., 
provides that Ltd., "has become a top enterprise in global film industry," 
neither nor the Petitioner , however, has presented independent and credible evidence, such 
as materials from industry publications, confirming that the business has a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Matter of G-L-
B. Request for Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the Director erred in not issuing an RFE, notifying him that the 
record lacked sufficient evidence to satisfy the relevant criteria. He, citing USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0085, Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny 2 (June 3, 2013), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda, 3 claims that "[i]t is a violation of 
Procedural Due Process that [the Director did not] give [him] proper prior notice and the opportunity 
to rebut such evidence and to present evidence [o]n his behalf" 
The record shows that the Director did issue an RFE which explained to the Petitioner the two-part 
review process under which his documents would first be analyzed to determine if they fulfill at least 
three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x); and ifso, the entire record would then be 
considered in a final merits determination. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Page 5 of the RFE 
specified that the evidence in the record did not establish that the Petitioner had met the initial evidence 
requirements, and "afford[ ed him] the opportunity to submit additional evidence to establish that [he] 
meets the regulatory criteria." The RFE reiterated that "[t]his is the [P]etitioner's opportunity to 
articulate further details or provide additional evidence in regards to how the evidence submitted in 
the initial filing or in response to this ... RFE establishes that [he] meets the requirements" for the 
classification. The record thus indicates that the Director did notify the Petitioner the submitted 
evidence was insufficient to establish his eligibility. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0085, 
supra, at 2 (providing that "[i]f not all of the required initial evidence has been submitted ... , the 
officer should issue an RFE"). 
Regardless, under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), while the Director may issue an RFE, it is also within her 
discretion to "deny the benefit request for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility," if "all required 
initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit request or does not demonstrate eligibility." 
Moreover, as the Petitioner has filed the instant appeal, he has been afforded an opportunity to 
supplement the record to demonstrate his eligibility for the classification as well as to address the 
concerns the Director raised in her denial of the petition. 
In light of the above reasons, we conclude that the record does not support the Petitioner's contentions. 
Specifically, the evidence does not show that the Director erred in regard to the RFE or that she 
violated the Petitioner's rights to procedural due process. 
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, upon a review of 
3 In 2018, users rescinded the 2013 Policy Memorandum, noting that "[i]f all required initial evidence is not submitted 
with the benefit request, users in its discretion may deny the benefit request for failure to establish eligibility based on 
lack of required initial evidence." users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0163, Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; 
Revisions to Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter J0.5(a), Chapter J0.5(b) 3 (July 13, 2018), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. The 2018 Policy Memorandum applies to applications 
received after September 11, 2018. 
Matter of G-L-
the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not support a finding that he has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for this classification. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are 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 academic, scholarly, research, and 
professional accomplishments 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 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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will therefore be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is 
the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § l36l;MatterofSkirballCulturalCtr., 25 I&NDec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-L-, ID# 3350519 (AAO May 3, 2019)