dismissed EB-1A Case: Spa Design And Wellness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-W-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 17, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in spa design and wellness. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner satisfied two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that she meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 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 A-W-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 implementing 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 that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the managing director for a spa concept and design firm. Because she 
has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she 
must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying 
the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record reflects 
that the Petitioner served as a judge for the in 2010 and performed in a leading or 
critical role for her company. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner demonstrated 
that she met the judging and leading or critical role criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets two additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of A-W-L-
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). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, including the title, date, and author of 
the material. 1 The Petitioner contends that she provided 28 articles that meet this criterion. The record, 
however, reflects that only four of the articles contain published material about the Petitioner relating 
to her work in the field. The remaining articles are about the Petitioner's company, 
Although some of these articles mention the Petitioner's name and reference her quotes, they are about 
the company and its spa-related projects. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *I, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 2 
Further, as it relates to the four articles mentioned above, the Petitioner did not include the required 
author for one of the articles (lifeandstyle.com). While the Petitioner claimed that the author was a 
"Staff Interviewer," she did not specifically identify the author of the material. 3 
In addition to lifeandstyle.com, one article was posted on wellnesstoday.com and two articles were 
published in Asia Spa. Regarding lifeandstyle.com, the Petitioner provided "About Us" screenshots 
and claimed that the "[c]ompany does not reveal" circulation numbers. Likewise, the Petitioner 
offered an "About Us" screenshot from wellnesstoday.com reflecting an affiliation with the Institute 
for Integrative Nutrition (IIN) and a screenshot from integrativenutritition.com stating that IIN "has 
provided a global learning experience for 100,000 students and graduates in over 150 countries 
worldwide." Moreover, as it relates to Asia Spa, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
bluincmedia.com indicating a circulation of 62,000. On appeal, the Petitioner presents screenshots 
from bluincmedia.com asserting that Blu Inc. Media is "[t]he leading luxury publication group in 
Asia." 
The record, however, does not demonstrate that the magazine and two websites are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. Without circulation or viewing statistics, the Petitioner 
has not shown that lifeandstyle.com and wellnesstoday.com are regarded as major media. 4 In addition, 
the screenshot from integrativenutritition.com relates to IIN rather than the medium status of 
wellnesstoday.com. Finally, while Asia Spa claims that it has a circulation of 62,000, the Petitioner 
did not show the significance of the figures or explain how such numbers represent major trade 
1 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 AD JJ-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. (providing that the published material should be about the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just 
about his or her employer or another organization with whom he or she is associated) . 
3 Similarly, the Petitioner did not sufficiently identify the authors of six other articles by indicating the author as the "Staff 
Writer" or "Staff Interviewer. " 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (finding that evidence of published material in professional 
or major trade publication or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is 
high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
3 
.
Matter of A-W-L-
publication status. Moreover, the screenshots from bluincmedia.com relate to Blu Inc. Media but do 
not show Asia Spa's standing as a major trade publication. 5 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that her evidence fulfills the eligibility requirements, she did 
not demonstrate that she fulfills 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). 
The Petitioner argues that her meets this criterion. In order to 
satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has she 
made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 6 For example, 
a petitioner may show that her 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. Here, we will address the Petitioner's arguments on appeal and determine whether she 
has shown original contributions of major significance in the field consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
The Petitioner submits a copy of presentation and indicates that her concept 
was reported by cladglobal.com. Although the article states that has come up with a new 
child-specific spa concept," the Petitioner did not demonstrate that an article covering an idea shows 
that the field views it as being majorly significant. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
reporting on the Petitioner's design by a single website is indicative of an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. For instance, she did not show that her spa concept resulted in 
widespread coverage and interest in major publications. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that her spa concept was "embraced by 
and and 
references the design contract, letter of appointment, photographs of the finished spas, and a Twitter 
page from advertising the spa. While at least two entities have incorporated the 
Petitioner's spa design in their hotels/resorts, she did not establish that the overall field views her 
concept as a contribution of major significance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not show that her spa 
design has been widely implemented or highly influenced the greater field. 7 
Similarly, the Petitioner references a previously submitted e-mail from senior director of 
design and construction for , requesting a seminar to 
discuss her spa presentation. Moreover, the Petitioner presents a letter from who stated that 
5 Likewise , while the Petitioner provided circulation and readership numbers for the other publications and websites , as 
well as background information for the publishing companies , she did not explain the relevance of the figures or show how 
such statistics demonstrate status as major trade publications or other major media. 
6 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original ," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
7 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). 
4 
.
Matter of A-W-L-
the [] has the greatest ability to impact the future [emphasis added] of spa design 
that caters to the kids" and "would [ emphasis added] set apart a brand such as in the 
wellness facility/luxury hotel sector." Here, speculated on the potential influence and on the 
possibility of being majorly significant at some point in the future. However, did not explain 
how the spa design already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than a 
prospective impact. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 8 On the other hand, letters that 
lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 9 Moreover, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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, 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 her 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 otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 201 2). Here, that burden has not been met. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602 -000 5.1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian , 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holdi ng that letter s that repeat the regulat ory 
language but do not e>..'Plain how an individual 's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establis h 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
5 
Matter of A-W-L-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-W-L-, ID# 2752470 (AAO Apr. 17, 2019)