dismissed EB-1A Case: Hospitality

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21655336 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 30, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the hospitality industry, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
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)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 international 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 criteria 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner founded al I franchise in Ukraine in 2011. He entered the United States in 2017 
as a B-1 nonimmigrant visitor for business, and changed to 0-1 status in 2021 to work as global business 
development manager for smartphone app developer! 1 In a volunteer position as Chief 
Innovation Officer of the I I be co-founded "the 
innovation arm of I The Petitioner has also advised the I J and 
I lat the University 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied five of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one of the criteria, pertaining to judging the work 
of others. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his evidence "satisfies the applicable legal 
requirements" to satisfy the other four claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied one additional criterion 
relating to judging and published material, for a total of two criteria. 2 We will discuss the other 
claimed criteria below. 
1 We acknowledge that 0-1 nonimmigrant status relates to extmordina1y ability. Nevertheless, the record of proceeding 
for the approvednonimmigrant petition is not before us, and we cannot determine whether the facts in that case were the 
same as those in the present proceeding, or whether the nonimmigrant petition was approved in error. The Petitioner 
submitted a copy of USC TS Policy Alert PA-2021-05, Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in Requests for 
Extensions of Petition Validity (Apr. 27, 2021 ), https://www.uscis.gov/news/ale1is, but that policy ale1i only address 
extensions of the validity of nonimmigrant petitions; it does not indicate that adjudicators of immigrant petitions owe 
deference to prior approvals of roughly analogous nonimmigrant petitions. The cited policy alert does not state or imply 
that the approval of an 0-1 nonimmigra nt petition creates a presumption of eligibility for immigrant classification as an 
individualofexttaordinary ability. 
2 The Directordeterminedthatanarticle from the UkminianeditionofForbeslackedan author credit and publication date 
as required by 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(iii). The Petitioner states on appeal that he had submitted this information, and the 
record confirms thathe submitted a letter from the magazine's editor containing that information. 
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 claims to have satisfied this criterion because the Ukrainian edition of Forbes named him 
among their I I entrepreneurs who have achieved success before age 30, and My Kharkov 
ranked him among the ___________________________ 
I I 
The Director requested more evidence to show that the articles described above constitute prizes or 
awards. In response, the Petitioner resubmitted the My Kharkov article, and a letter from the "Chief 
Redactor" of the Ukrainian edition of Forbes. That official refers to I but the 
accompanying printouts from the U.S. website of Forbes refer only to the I , lnot award. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that recognition in these 
publications amounts to prizes or awards. On appeal, the Petitioner disputes this conclusion but offers no 
specific rebuttal. He states the conclusion that his evidence "satisfies the applicable legal requirements," 
but makes no argument to supp01i that conclusion. 
The Petitioner has not shown that he received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in his field. As noted above, we have already concluded that the Forbes article 
satisfies the separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) relating to published material. 
Asse1iions about the prestige of inclusion in Forbes's I I list would have been considered in 
the context of a final merits determination, if the proceeding had reached that point. 
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 expe1ts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion because he is the Chieflnnovation Officer of the 
and because of "[s]election to represent the hospitality industry in the exclusive invite only I I I program atl !University." The Petitioner submitted no evidence to establish 
that thel lprogram is an association in the field, and the Petitioner submitted no 
further evidence about the program in response to a request for evidence. 
A printout from thel !website confirms the Beneficiary's position there, but the Petitioner has not 
established thatc=]membership conforms to the regulation by requiring outstanding achievements of 
its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The leadership is not, 
itself, an association in the field. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not submitted documentary evidence, 
such as bylaws, to establish that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states, without elaboration, that his evidence "satisfies the applicable legal requirements." 
3 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof with respect to 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). 
In his initial submission, the Petitioner cited four submitted exhibits as evidence of his qualifying 
contributions. First, a blog published on the website of the Wall Street Journal spotlights thel J 
at one of the Petitioner's clubs, which "offers complimentary drinks [in exchange] for a variety of 
social media activities." The blog post does not ref er to this innovation as a contribution of major 
significance in the field, and the Petitioner has not submitted other evidence of such significance, such as, 
for example, showing that the hospitality industry has wide ly adopted a similar policy of bartering social 
media mentions for drinks. 3 He indicated that thel Japp facilitates similar transactions for other 
bars, but the record does not establish the significance of that app. For example, the Petitioner has not 
established widespread use of the app. 
The second cited exhibit is a 2019 article from Bar & Restaurant, with the title I 
I I The article indicates that the and a venture 
capital firm called lwere collaborating on a startup incubator. The article describes the 
process for selecting candidate companies, but does not demonstrate that, or explain how, the project itself 
is of major significance in the field. The article states that the impetus behind the project is to spur 
innovation in the hospitality industry, but it does not indicate that the project has already led to such 
innovation. Rather, it states that the first fruits of the project would be presented at a trade show that, at 
the time of publication, had not yet occurred. 
The third cited exhibit is a letter from the directorof at Ide scribing 
the Petitioner's "cooperation with on projects aimed at improving technology 
opportunities forthe hospitality industry." The letter indicates that Intel named the Petitioner as its advisor 
with regard to "development of innovative hardware solutions for various venues in the hospitality 
industry worldwide." As with the article described above, the letter does not identify any specific 
innovations or projects. Rather, the letter indicates that the Petitioner "has already connected with 
12 other hardware development companies." From the letter, it is not entirely clear what the Petitioner's 
claimed original contribution is. In the absence of other information or evidence in support, acting as a 
volunteer advisor is not inherently an original contribution. 
Finally, the Petitioner submits a letter from the executive director of which 
"teaches entrepreneurship skills for future professionals in the Hospitality sector." The letter indicates 
that the Petitioner "provides his invaluable expertise and allows us to attract some of the best innovators," 
but the Petitioner has not established how this is significant to the greater field outside of I 
In a request for evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner's initial submission provided "broad 
attestations" but not "specific examples of original contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance." 
3 The blog post dates from 2014, seven years before the filing of the petition, and therefore there has been ample time for 
other establishments to adopt similar practices, and for evidence of such adoption to accumulate. 
4 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from an official of which 
organizes "the biggest nightclub and bar show in the world." The letter states that the Petitioner "has 
incubated and then introduced us to several successful startups ... that disrupted our industry in the most 
positive sense. I believe their success would not be possible without [the Petitioner's] unique system of 
scaling and providing the market access to these startups." The letter names several of these startups, but 
does not provide fmther details or corroborating evidence. Even if these startups have, themselves, made 
an impact on the hospitality industty, it does not necessarily follow that the Petitioner's involvement in 
the incubation process is, itself, a contribution of major significance in the field. The Petitioner does not 
provide details about his "unique systems" or establish, for example, that his systems have resulted in 
greater success for the startups involved. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not identified specific original 
contributions or provided details to show the major significance of those contt·ibutions. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that his evidence "satisfies the applicable legal requirements," but he does not 
elaborate or identify any specific error by the Director in this regard. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied 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 lesser 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 conclusion 
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, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Seesection203(b)(l)(A)oftheActand8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner owned successful I I in Ukraine, and that he has been 
active in incubating hospitality businesses in the United States, but while we acknowledge a level of 
success, it does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The record refers to the 
Petitioner's most recent work in the United States in terms of its potential, rather than its existing 
impact. Speculation about what could result from the Petitioner's ongoing work is not an adequate 
basis for granting the extremely restrictive immigrant classification the Petitioner seeks. The record 
does not show sustained recognition and attention outside of entities where he has worked as an 
employee, consultant, or volunteer. We note that his 0-1 nonimmigrant status is contingent on his 
5 
employment with but the record contains minimal information about the company and his 
work there. 
The Petitioner's statement on appeal identifies only one specific error by the Director, which we have 
taken into account in the above discussion. The general, blanket assertion that his evidence "satisfies 
the applicable legal requirements" does not rebut or overcome the Director's other adverse findings. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6