This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only one criterion met (published material), and reversed the Director's finding on the leading/critical role criterion, leaving the petitioner with fewer criteria satisfied than under the original denial.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a construction manager and Vice President of Engineering at a Chinese company, sought EB-1A classification but could satisfy only one evidentiary criterion — published media coverage. His claims regarding company-level construction prizes were undermined by record discrepancies about which entity received the awards and whether he was even employed in a qualifying capacity at the time. Letters asserting his influence on Chinese government construction regulations lacked corroboration in technical or official documents. The AAO reversed the Director's finding on the leading/critical role criterion, finding that neither a AAA credit rating nor ISO certifications demonstrated a distinguished organizational reputation. Without reaching three criteria, no final merits determination was necessary and the appeal was dismissed.
What worked: A newspaper article in The China Press about the petitioner and his work satisfied the published material criterion.
What failed: 1) Company-level construction prize certificates could not be attributed to the petitioner personally, and the record contained unresolved factual discrepancies about his role and employment dates. 2) Reference letter claims about influencing government building regulations were not supported by technical drawings, patent filings, or correspondence with regulators. 3) AAA credit ratings and ISO certifications were insufficient to show a distinguished reputation; salary evidence did not demonstrate earnings significantly above peers.
Takeaway: When claiming awards, ensure the record clearly shows the alien — not just the employer — is the named recipient, or provide detailed, consistent, and corroborated evidence of personal de facto receipt. For original contribution claims, supplement reference letters with objective documentary evidence such as patents, technical proposals, or official correspondence linking the petitioner directly to the claimed impact.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- A newspaper article in The China Press about the petitioner and his work satisfied the published material criterion.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- 1) Company-level construction prize certificates could not be attributed to the petitioner personally, and the record contained unresolved factual discrepancies about his role and employment dates
- 2) Reference letter claims about influencing government building regulations were not supported by technical drawings, patent filings, or correspondence with regulators
- 3) AAA credit ratings and ISO certifications were insufficient to show a distinguished reputation
- salary evidence did not demonstrate earnings significantly above peers.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metAwards were given to companies, not the petitioner personally. Record contained discrepancies about which company received the awards and petitioner's role and qualifications at the relevant times.
Published material about the person
MetAAO agreed with Director that an article in The China Press satisfied this criterion.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metReference letters claiming petitioner's wall insulation methods influenced 2008 government regulations were not corroborated by technical drawings, patents, or other documentation; regulation foreword indicated it was based on broad industry experience and international standards, not petitioner's specific contributions.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed Director's finding. Petitioner's role with one employer lacked corroborating evidence; reference letter for that employer was inconsistent. Role with another employer was evidenced but that company failed to demonstrate a distinguished reputation through AAA credit rating and ISO certifications alone.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner's base salary of RMB 600,000 was not high compared to similarly situated professionals. Salary surveys showed many comparable or higher figures; bonus comparison was undermined by incomplete data on executive stock compensation.
Article in The China Press about the petitioner, satisfying the published material criterion
Company-level construction quality prize certificates — awards named company as recipient, not petitioner individually
Reference letters claiming petitioner led prize-winning construction projects — factual inconsistencies about employment dates and qualifications undercut credibility
Reference letters asserting petitioner's wall insulation methods influenced 2008 Chinese government regulations — not corroborated by technical documents, patents, or correspondence with regulators
AAA credit rating and ISO 9001/14001 certifications as proof of employer's distinguished reputation — these demonstrate financial reliability and internal quality systems, not industry distinction
Salary surveys and executive compensation data — petitioner's base salary was not shown to be high relative to peers, and bonus/stock comparison data was incomplete
The AAO reversed the Director's finding that petitioner met the leading or critical role criterion (viii) because the Director failed to adequately evaluate whether the employer organizations had a distinguished reputation and whether the reference letters were sufficiently corroborated.
Completed
I-140 filed
Construction manager and Vice President of Engineering at a Chinese construction company; co-founder of a real estate investment company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-03-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only one criterion met (published material), and reversed the Director's finding on the leading/critical role criterion, leaving the petitioner with fewer criteria satisfied than under the original denial.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee