dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6370813 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 6, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an entrepreneur in the field of business , seeks classification as an alien 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 that the Petitioner meets the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three of the 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)(l) 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 of the I O • I Club, a business catering to the owners of high­
performance luxury automobiles in China. The business offers car rental and maintenance services, 
collaborates with the makers of other luxury items to offer exclusives goods and services, and 
organizes automotive events. The Petitioner states that his intention upon entering the United States 
would be to "use the access to the U.S. to offer more investment opportunities" to members, and to 
reach partnership agreements with similar clubs 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 published material about him in major media and his 
leading role for the company he founded. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the 
evidentiary criteria relating to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field, and original 
business contributions of major significance. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we 
find that he has not met the initial evidence requirements. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) seeking translator certifications which state that the 
provided translations of documents from the Chinese to English language were complete, in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). In response, the Petitioner submitted the same evidence as 
initially submitted, together with individual certifications for each translated document which included 
the required statement. However, upon review we note that many of the English language translations 
do not include a complete translation of the original material in Chinese, which is evident based upon 
2 
a comparison of the structure of the materials and the Petitioner's highlighting of his name and certain 
passages in the original documents. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification 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 Director found that the Petitioner meets this criterion, but did not provide an analysis or indicate 
which evidence supported the Petitioner's claim. The Petitioner submitted more than twenty articles 
in support of this criterion, along with evidence relating to the media in which they were published. 1 
While, as noted above, most of the translations accompanying these documents are incomplete, the 
evidence is sufficient to show that some of them are about the Petitioner and his work, focusing on his 
career and establishment of thel I Club. However, of these articles about the Petitioner, 
much of the evidence regarding the media in which they were published does not establish that they 
can be considered either professional or major trade publications or another type of major media. For 
example, information on website traffic was submitted regarding www.sohu.com and www.163.com, 
internet portals which are popular in China. However, many of the articles were posted on specific 
webpages within those portals, such asl lsohu.com andl 1163.com, about which 
information was not provided. In those cases, the record does not include information regarding the 
specific media on which these articles were published, and they are therefore not qualifying under this 
criterion. 
Other articles about the Petitioner, however, have been sufficiently shown to have been published in 
major media. For example, the record includes an interview of him at the 20161 !Auto Show 
which was posted on autohome.com.cn. As such, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In his decision, the Director found that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion, as many of the events 
he asserted to have judged were racing events in which he was not judging the work of other 
entrepreneurs or executives in their business capacities. He also acknowledged the evidence regarding 
the I !Ceremony," for which the Petitioner asserted that he served as a judge for several 
awards given to club members, including 'I I' and l I' 
However, as with the awards related to automotive events, he found that the evidence does not show 
that, in this role, the Petitioner was judging the business work of other executives. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence consisting of certificates which are not signed but 
include the seal of the I I Club. Each of these, one for every year from 2010 to 2018, includes 
a statement that the Petitioner served as a judge at these events, and in particular for awards for "most 
1 While many of the English translations accompanying these articles are incomplete, the evidence is sufficient to determine 
that several of the articles are about the Petitioner. 
3 
potential young entrepreneur," "most contribution member," and "best cooperative brand." They also 
include lists of the awardees in every year, as well as the criteria for each award. 
We first note that the certifications are not supported by independent documentary evidence of the 
criteria used for these awards, the individuals who served as judges, and the fields in which the 
recipients are engaged. In addition, the information in these certificates is inconsistent with previously 
submitted evidence in the record. An article which appears to be a social media post by the club 
describes the 2013 I I Ceremony and lists the members who won several awards, including 
"Best Newcomers," "Best Tolerance," "Most Potential Young Entrepreneur," and "Most Temperate 
Entrepreneur" among others. We note that in the list of winners for the "Most Potential Young 
Entrepreneur" award, two of the five names listed in the article are different from those listed on the 
certificate pertaining to the 2013 ceremony. In addition, whereas the certificate lists eight winners of 
the "Best Manner" award, the article lists four names under two separate awards, "Best Tolerance" 
and "Most Temperate Entrepreneur," and again not all of the names are the same between the two 
documents. Further, another certificate initially submitted includes the same names as those listed in 
the article, but lists the winners of the "Most Temperate Entrepreneur" award in the article as receivers 
of the "Most Distinguished Entrepreneur" award. The Petitioner must resolve these discrepancies in 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Because of the lack of such evidence, both to resolve these factual 
discrepancies and corroborate information in the certificates issued by the company founded and run 
by the Petitioner, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he has participated as a judge of 
the work of others in his field. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order 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. 
The Director found that while the evidence may have shown the Petitioner's original contribution to 
the field of business, the creation of a new business model, it did not establish the major significance 
of this contribution. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider evidence of 
his contributions to the exotic car industry and automobile culture in China, and refers to additional 
reference letters not specifically addressed in the Director's decision, as well as media reports about 
I lclub. 
The first reference letter, which was analyzed by the Director in his decision, was written byl I 
I O J of the University of~-----~ Whilel I states that he "knew 
[the Petitioner] several years," he does not indicate in what ca=acitfc he knew the Petitioner or how he 
became familiar with the specifics of his operation ofl Club. He goes on to state that the 
Petitioner is an expert in the field of "automotive public relatjons," and was the first to introduce "the 
concept of super car club." I lalso states that the Petitioner's focus on privacy for his 
elite clients was an innovation, and mentions that the business also focuses on "extended services" 
4 
such as ~ustomization, loan services andl !security. In addition, he writes that other super 
car clubs have failed because they did not focus on I I or did not offer the extended services as 
the Petitioner has, so that I I Club "occupies the top position in super club ranking." 
Another letter was submitted by I l who indicates that he holds several positions in government 
and volunteer organizations. I I describes the Petitioner as "an entref reneur in the automobile 
industry in China," and commends his organization of the I _ activity and its goals of 
"deepen[ing] the public's knowledge of car culture and encourage the people to donate for public 
causes." He also states that by encouraging club members to donate to charitable causes, the Petitioner 
"has chanrd the perception of super car clubs from a wealth showoff to a caring, socially responsible 
industry."._ ___ _,further notes the Petitioner's collaboration with I I to design 
special edition watches bearing! !Club branding, stating that this is indicative of the club's 
global reputation. 
In addition, a letter was submitted I I founder of an automobile dealer group in I l the 
~ China where the Petitioner's business is also based. I lstates that there were very few 
L_Jcar owners in China when the Petitioner began his business in 2007, but even though other clubs 
have arisen which have successfully imitated! !Club, it "is in a stronger position than all 
these clubs because of its unique services and well-established networks." He also indicates that the 
club is differentiated from other super car clubs in its professional staff, strict membership guidelines, 
and collaboration with luxury brands. I I concludes that the Petitioner "changed an entire field" 
and "enhanced the sales of super cars in China." 
These letters indicate that the Petitioner built a successful business that was among the D supercar 
clubs in China, which is generally supported by media evidence in the record. For example, an article 
published on auto.sohu.com datedl ,I 2016, is accompanied by a partial English translation 
which states that other super car clubs "were more or less affected" by I I Club and that 
many now "exist in name only." The article also states that the club will be "China's first luxury car 
club to enter the capital market." However, while I ~ s letter stresses that the success of 
I I Club was built upon its offering of other services, the record does not indicate that other 
supercar clubs in China have followed this business model by similarly offering extended services and 
partnering with luxury brands. While the Petitioner's business model may be unique, he has not 
established that this model has been adopted by other entrepreneurs or has become widespread even 
amongst the small group of other supercar club founders in China. 
In addition, the assertions inl Is letter about the Petitioner's impact on the exotic car industry 
and sales in China are not supported by documentary evidence. In his appeal brief, the Petitioner 
s ecifically refers to an interview of him that was published onl l.auto.sohu.com onl I 
1 n took place at thel I Auto Show. In the interview, the Petitioner is asked to describe 
Club, its membership requirements, local events it has staged, and sales of supercars in L..,-----,------, 
the ~-~ area. Both the nature of the Petitioner's responses and the local scope of the website 
where the interview was published show that the Petitioner is considered to be a local expert in exotic 
cars in thd O I area, but do not establish the significance of his contribution to the field as a 
whole. Further, while he mentions in this interview that a certain number of luxury cars have been 
sold in conjunction with thel !Auto Show, the Petitioner's statement is not sufficient to support 
I Is assertion regarding his impact on the sales of supercars in China overall. 
5 
Further, the Petitioner's assertions on appeal that he has "raise[d] the level of automobile-related 
awareness, education, study, investment, and technical expertise in China" are not supported by the 
evidence to which he refers. For example, althoufhl I mentions in his letter that the 
Petitioner established 'I which employs very experienced domestic and 
foreign engineers and mechanics," this does not support the Petitioner's assertion that his efforts have 
increased technical automotive expertise in China. Whatl ~ letter, and other supporting 
evidence, demonstrates is that the Petitioner provides automotive maintenance and customization 
services to the members o~ I club. There is no indication that the Petitioner has established 
training programs or that the impact of these services extends beyond his clients. More importantly, 
even were this assertion proven to be accurate, the Petitioner has not shown how this would connote 
a contribution of major significance to the field of business or entrepreneurship. 
Similarly, while the e:ide:ce lrds some support to the Petitioner's claim to have raised awareness of 
supercars througH._~~~-_.Club' s events, at least in the[ area, he has not shown how this 
has impacted other entrepreneurs or been of major significance in the field of business. 
For all of the reasons stated above, upon review we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
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 evidence establishes that as the founder ofl I Club, the Petitioner has performed in a 
leading or critical role with respect to this company. In addition, the record includes media reports of 
the company's activities which demonstrate that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. As such, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
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. 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 demonstrate 
the Petitioner 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). 
6 
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. 
7