Company Numbers Are Not Personal Numbers: An EB-1A RFE That Rejected Four Criteria and Was Denied

The applicant was a general manager at a Chinese company in the smart handheld devices / intelligent terminal devices sector, self-petitioning for EB-1A classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. The initial filing submitted evidence under four of the ten regulatory criteria: published material in professional or major media, original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role at a distinguished organization, and high salary. USCIS rejected all four in a single RFE, and — unlike the other cases in this collection — the petition was ultimately denied after the response.

On media coverage, the submitted articles were profile pieces and outlet introductions, but the record did not establish that any of the outlets qualified as professional or major trade publications or other major media — no circulation figures, no evidence of the intended audience, nothing tying the coverage to an outlet with documented industry standing. This is the same attribution-of-venue problem that recurs throughout this dataset, just without any of the outlets surviving scrutiny at all.

On original contributions, the filing was unusually document-heavy: roughly thirty patent certificates, seventy software copyright registrations issued to the company and its subsidiaries, and several technology-licensing agreements with named third-party companies. USCIS still rejected the criterion, because none of it was tied to major significance in the field — no evidence that people throughout the field considered the specific contributions important, no citations or widespread commentary, and the licensing agreements were treated as company transactions rather than as evidence that the beneficiary's specific technical contribution had been adopted because of its significance. A large volume of patents is not, by itself, evidence of significance.

On critical role, the evidence was a work certificate, an organization chart, and multi-year summaries of the company's business contracts by total value. USCIS accepted none of it as establishing that the organization itself had a distinguished reputation — contract revenue volume was not treated as proof of eminence, distinction, or excellence, and the officer noted that an organization's size or longevity is relevant only together with other independent evidence of reputation, not as a substitute for it.

The salary objection is the most instructive one. The filing included an income certificate, several years of individual income tax records, and — notably — public announcements of a separate, publicly listed company's acquisition of a minority equity stake in the beneficiary's employer, at a stated purchase price. USCIS found this combination insufficient: foreign tax documents alone do not establish that a salary is high relative to others in the same field, and an acquirer's valuation of the company as a whole says nothing about what any individual executive personally earns. The record contained no independent salary survey, government wage data, or comparable compensation study for the beneficiary's specific role and field.

The RFE's final-merits section stated plainly that, having failed to establish at least three of the ten criteria, USCIS would not proceed to weigh whether the beneficiary had reached the top of the field at all. The response was filed, and the petition was denied.