dismissed EB-1A Case: Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8745561 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in tourism. 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
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)(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 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 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 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 ve1y 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner serves as board chairman and general manager o ...._ _____________ __, 
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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two criteria: leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that he meets four additional criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he satisfies the requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
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 eligibility for this criterion based on nine awards. In order to fulfill this criterion, 
a petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 2 
The record shows that the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to the rankings of ranked 
79th (2017) and 95th (2018) in thel ITop 100 ranked 7th in the 
~ol !Agencies in 2018, and ranked 12th in the 2017 
L_JCompanies Market Value List. Although he submitted a letter from ~===-=-~-=--..--..--~"T"o_e_s_n_o--,1 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po licymanual/HTML /PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
2 
identify the author, crediting him for the company obtaining the rankings, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate his receipt of the rankings. The description of this type of evidence the regulation 
provides that the focus should be on the alien's receipt, as opposed to his or employer's receipt. 3 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that such rankings qualify as nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence consistent with this regulatory criterion. 4 
Regarding the remaining six awards, the Petitioner indicates in his brief to "See also Exhibits 23 -25 
of RFE [request for evidence]." (emphasis in original). However, these referenced exhibits relate to 
the rankings discussed above and do not show evidence pertaining to these awards. Nevertheless, the 
record reflects that the Petitioner submitted evidence under other exhibits relating to these awards. 
Although he includes quotation references and alludes to evidence, the Petitioner does not specifically 
identify the documentation. If it is the Petitioner's contention that certain documentation establishes his 
eligibility for a particular award, he does not articulate or distinguish the exhibits in this regard. Moreover, 
the Petitioner argues that each award "is a national level award whose scope covers all ofl I The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the prizes or awards to be nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field rather than simply national or international level awards. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received the "Influential Figure in Tourism of the Year" and "Most 
Inventive Figure" froml !Tourism Billboard in 2016. The Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
various websites regarding the creation of the I !Tourism Billboard. For instance, screenshots from 
sohu.com stated that "[t]hd c:::!iourism Billboard was jointly launched b~ I and 
Tourism I land more than 20 most influential mainstream I across the runtry."1 
While several websites refer to thel I Tourism Billboard awards "as the Oscar Award in 
tourism industry" (travel.hexun.com), none of them explain or justify this assertion. Furthermore, besides 
listing the Petitioner as the winner of both awards, the websites do not discuss the significance of the 
Petitioner's specific awards in the field. In addition,! !Tourism Billboard distributed awards in 25 
categories with multiple winners in each category. For instance, the Petitioner received the "Influential 
Figure in Tourism of the Year" along with 13 other winners. On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[t]he 
award first takes place in fmalist from several provinces before the final award is selected from the 
finalists of all of the rovinces" and presents screenshots from four websites regarding the "2015 
Tourism Brand " "2016 Tourism Br~wards I t' ~"2=0"'"'1"""6'-'-------1 
Tourism Brand Awards~----~' and the "2017l__JTourism Brand Awards '--~~-.,......... Awards." Again, the issue for this criterion is not whether the award is national in scope but whether the 
award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. Moreover, the documentation 
does not reference the standing of the "Influential Figure in Tourism of the Year" and "Most Inventive 
Figure" awards in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted screenshots from several websites showing that he was one of nine 
individuals to receive the "Top Ten Figures of the Year of 2016" from the firstl IA ward at the 
I I Tourism I !Annual Summit. However, he did not demonstrate the field's 
recognition of this recently established award. On appeal, the Petitioner provides screenshots from 
dy.163.com promoting the ceremony and screenshots from sohu.com reporting on another individual who 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, sufra, at 6. 
4 The letter also lists seven other awards thatl claims to have received; however, the Petitioner did not establish 
that he received them, nor did he show that they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
3 
received al I Award. Again, the screenshots do not discuss the significance ofreceiving a "Top 
Ten Figures of the Year" award by the field or its recognition as a national or international award for 
excellence in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he was named as one of the "20161 !Tourism 
Top Ten Business Leaders" b~ I The record contains screenshots fromOcom describing 
the awards ceremony, including listing each of the winners. However, the Petitioner did not establish that 
field recognizes the 1 !Tourism Top Ten Business Leader" as a national or international award for 
excellence in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner submits screenshots from two websites reporting on two 
other individuals who received the award and screenshots from mini.eastday.com that covered the 
ceremony. While the screenshots described the events of the ceremony, including the selection process 
and winners, they do not discuss the national or international significance ofreceiving a 'I I Tourism 
Top Ten Business Leader" award in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not show that the award is 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field beyon~ I 
Moreover, the record reflecls that the Petitioner received the "20 I 7 Most syi~ly }es:onsible Leader" 
from the I I Evening News. The Petitioner offered evidence about the Evening News and 
from the publication indicating the winners from the 60th Anniversary of Evening News 
celebration. However, the screenshots do not mention the field's view of the "2017 Most Socially 
Responsible Leader" or establishes it as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. 
The Petitioner does not offer any additional documentation regarding this award on appeal. Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his award is recognized in his field as a national or international award 
for excellence outside ofthd !Evening News. 
Finally, the Petitioner received the "20171 I Tourism Award - [ f' 1, from National 
Tourism. The Petitioner submitted screenshots from websites about the award ceremony, including 
I I and I lcom reporting on the history of"[t]he scandal of 'ballot rigging,' 'canvass' has 
been frequently exposed" and "has been seriously affected by 'ballot rigging' and 'canvassing for votes."" 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such reputation and history represents a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner does not submit 
any additional documentation, and the record does not establish that the field recognizes his "2017 
I I Tourism Award-I t as a national or international award for excellence. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that "[he] and I as a result of [his] leadership, are members of 
associations that requires outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national 
or international experts." In addition, he claims that I ~ is a member of the~ I 
I I and it was also cleared as Vice President Unit and I is 
represented by [him] as its legal representative." In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate his membership in an association, and show that membership in the association is based 
4 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. 5 
The record contains a letter from I I secretary general of , who indicated that "[t]he 
~--~~ouristic led by the Petitioner] is a Member Unit of " Further, the record includes 
a ce1iificate showing that" is the Vice President Unit o . " In addition, the Petitioner 
submitted the "Articles o.__ _____________ _.' reflecting in A1iicle 7 that "[t]he 
members of the association shall be member units, and individual members shall not be admitted." 
Therefore, the Petitioner is ineligible for membership withl I The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires the "alien's membership in associations" rather than a company's 
membership in associations. As such, the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for this criterion 
by vi1iue ofl I's membership with I I 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that I I requires outstanding 
achievements of it members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. According to 
I Is articlesJ bust recognize and support! Is constitution, be willing to join 
the association, and be established in ~ without a bad reputation. Here, the Petitioner did not 
establish that such requirements are tantamount to "outstanding achievements" consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. Although the articles indicate that membership is "[a]dopted by discussion of the 
Council or Standing Council, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Council or Standing Council 
is comprised of recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 class[fication 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 Petitioner contends that "[t]he aiiicles submitted discussed! I as a company" and ·I I 
is led and directed by [him] and I ~as attributed to its success, receipt of awards, etc. to [his] 
work at the company." In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published 
material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the 
title, date, and author of the material. 6 Thus, published material about I ldoes not qualify for 
this criterion. 
At the outset, the Petitioner references "See Exhibits 1 - 24 of Initial Submission." (emphasis in 
original). However, the record does not reflect the relationship between the majority of the exhibits 
and the published material criterion. For example, some of the exhibits relate to the Petitioner's 
passports,! Is business records, and recommendation letters. As discussed under the awards 
criterion, if it is the Petitioner's contention that ce1iain documentation establishes his eligibility for a 
5 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member. 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
6 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
5 
particular article, he does not articulate or distinguish the exhibits in this matter. Further, the inclusion of 
the title, date, and author of the material is not optional but a regulatory requirement. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As indicated below, the Petitioner did not provide the date and/or author for the 
majority of the material. In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the material was published 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 7 
The Petitioner submitted articles froml 11 ~ (no author), and I I (no 
author) reflecting interviews of him regarding! I and the I ~ndustry; none of the articles 
discuss him or are othe1wise about him. Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulat01y 
criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). Similarly, he included 
articles from kknews.com,r-7com (no author), and I I.com (no author) in which the Petitioner 
provided quotes on behalf~ ,I but the articles are not about him. 
Likewise, the Petitioner provided articles from I I (no aut,...h....;;o_r...._. ______ --.--____. 
I I l l(no date and no author),~--~-~-~ and 
I I (no author) reporting o~ I; in fact, the Petitioner is never ment10ne many of the 
articles and do not reflect published material about him. Further, the Petitioner offered screenshots of 
videos or television coverage from I 1 ~ ~ate and no author),! l(no date and no author), 
I l (no date and no author), andl___J (no date and no author) without any transcripts of 
the videos to show published material about him; nevertheless, the videos appear to be aboutl I 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an article froml I which includes the title and date, reflecting 
published material about him. However, the Petitioner did establish the author of the website article. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that I I is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies 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 order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field.8 For 
example, a petitioner may show that his 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. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (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). 
6 
The Petitioner argues: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Under [his] leadershlip anl direction, I I launched the experience shop which was 
popularly received in and the tourism industry. 
Under [his] leadership and direction,! I has launched brand new cruise ship tours that 
have never been taken before and which have promoted cultural exchanges between I I ~nd 
other countries. ~--~ 
Und~r [his] leadership and direction,! I has created new routes and provided exclusive 
services. 
Under [his] leadership and direction.I lhas grown to be a successful company that is 
listed on the stock market and worth hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Here, the Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his contributions tol I rather 
than the majorly significant impact or influence those those contributions have had in the field.9 
Furthe1more, although he references recommendation letters and submits Internet media articles 
showin~ I's activities, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how those business actions have been 
of major significance in the tourism industry. For instance, I. k )fttter indicated that the 
Petitioner "pioneered the concept of 'tourism experience store' in~travel industry in 2013, 
which combines the tourism life with the tourism culture to inspire thel I consumers' good 
wishes for travel." However,! I did not further elaborate and explain how the "tourism 
experience store" significantly impacted the tourism field. Further, while the Petitioner presents 
Internet media articles reporting on the recent opening of the stores, the articles do not reflect how the 
stores have affected the field in a majorly significant manner. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not show howl Is launching of new cruise ship tours or creating 
new tourism routes has been viewed in the field as being majorla significant. The Petitioner references 
letters and submits screenshots reflecting various examples o _ Is tour packages and events, 
such as Olympic venues; 46-day cruise ship tour around the South Pacific; cruise ship tours around 
I Is four seas; and tour packages for the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Denmark, and the United 
States. While these may be new ventures for I I the Petitioner did not establish the originality 
of offering cruise ship tours and vacation destinations through a tourism agency. In addition, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of these offerin s in the field. For example, the 
Petitioner provides an article froml !indicating that si ned a contract with the 
National Football League to "become the first tourism enterprise in.__ _ ___.conducting commercial 
operation of [S]uper [B]owl ticket." Here, the Petitioner did not show the impact that this offering, or 
any other ofl Is promotional orLJ packages, has had on the field to be considered a 
contribution of major significance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not establish ho~ ts listing on the stock market and company value 
reflect an original contribution of major significance in the field. While he references letters that praise 
I ~ s reputation and repeats various tour packages, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how being 
listed on the stock market constitutes an original contribution in the field, let alone a contribution of 
9 See 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). 
7 
major significance. He did not show, for example, hoJ Is stock market presence or value has 
significantly impacted or influenced the field in a major way. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Further, we 
considered the Petitioner's arguments and documentation under the leading or critical role criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
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 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. 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 otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
Although the Petitioner has experience in the tourism industry, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
8