dismissed O-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR t 2 2014 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Departmen t of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Imm igration Services 
Adm inistr ativ e Appe als Offic e (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W. , MS 2090 
WashinQton. DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/ /www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Directordenied the nonimmigr ant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
Th e petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursu ant to 
section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationalit y Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the field of business. The petitioner states that it is in the busine ss of 
"[i]nternational tours and cultural exchanges." It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a "Special Theme Tours 
Program Director" for two years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that she is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field. Specifically, the director determined that the evidence submitted 
did not satisfy the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214~2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least three of the eight criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion arid forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director "failed to recognize the correct 'field of 
endeavor' and thus based the decision on an improper reasoning." The petitioner asserts that the evidence 
establishes that the beneficiary meets at least four of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(B). 
I. The Law 
Section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the cla ssification of a qualified 
alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education , business, or a thletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim ... and whose achievements 
have been r ecog nized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability .... 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a l evel of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818, 41819 (August 15, 1994); 137 
Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigr ation and Naturaliz ation Service (INS) emphasized: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. The 0-1 clas sification should be reserved only for 
those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or profession. The 0-1 
classification is substantially higher than the old H-1B prominent standard. Officers involved in 
the adjudication of these petitions should not "water down" the classification by approving 0-1 
petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum , Lawrence Weinig , Acting Asst. Comm'r. , INS, "Policy Guidelines for the Adjudication of 0 
and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business , or athletics must demo nstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation : 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's memb ership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publication s or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published mate rial, 
and any necessa ry translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly , or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment , or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9
1
h Cir. 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification , the regulations reviewed by 
the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three out of ten alternative 
criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. Cf 8 C.P.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
(b)(6)
Yage) 
evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three 
types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also 
explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus , Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The AAO finds the Kazarian court's 
two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions 
for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service 
Center decisions , the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc . v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Discussion 
The petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. On Form I-129, the petitioner stated 
that it is in the business of " [i]ntemational tours and cultural exchanges." In a letter submitted with the initial 
petition, the petitioner described itself as "a startup Southern California travel agency." The petitioner explained 
that, while there are several travel agencies in Southern California specializing in US travel, the petitioner 
seeks to distinguish itself by offering "a greater variety of theme tours that include, but not limited to, sports tours, 
national parks tour, summer camps tour, etc." 
In the same letter, the petitioner described the duties of the beneficiary 's proffered position as a "sp ecial theme 
tours program director" as follows : 
As a theme tour program director for our company, [the beneficiary's] responsibilities include, 
but not limited to, creating theme tours. First theme tour that comes to our mind is a golf tour. 
But we also have NBA, tennis, American football game tours in our mind too. [The beneficiary] 
will be in charge of the whole process of creating, arranging and organizing the tours. She will 
be responsible in writing a plan, contacting the U.S. corresponding organizations and supervising 
the carrying out of each tour plan [sic]. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted its business plan, which described the services offered as "including making travel 
arrangements, making lodging arrangements, arranging aH-inclusive golf vacations, booking tours, arranging 
local transportation, arranging summer camp and educational training services, importing Hollywood movies to 
China." 
The petitioner submitted a list of its projected employees and their duties. The Program Director's duties are 
listed as: train, oversee, develop, and assist with the hiring of the Program Coordinators; make weekly progress 
reports to the General Manager regarding development of new services and execution of existing service orders; 
develop sports tours and oversee the services of the all-inclusive golf vacations; contact Hollywood studios, select 
and import Hollywood movies to China; oversee the development of services and summer and winter camps for 
students; oversee the arranging of travel services for [the petitioner's] customers; and coordinate with order 
processing division to receive all service orders and ensure that all customers are satisfied. 
In support of the initial petition, the petitioner also submitted, inter alia, the following documents: 
1. Letter of support from Associate Chancellor for Public Affairs, 
attesting to the beneficiary's qualifications in the field of 
"[c]ultural exchange through sp01t events;" 
2. Letter of support from Secretary General of and General 
Manager of attesting to the beneficiary 's 
qualifications in the field of "golf tourism, event management;" 
3. Letter of support from Manager of Distribution Services, 
writing in support of the beneficiary "as a professional in the area of cultural 
exchange and entertainment;" 
4. Letter of support from Chairman, indicating the 
beneficiary's field of expertise as "golf tourism ;" 
5. The beneficiary's "Statement of Accomplishments," attesting to her experience and knowledge 
of "sport management ," "golf management and sport tourism ," and "golf tourism business ;" 
6. The beneficiary': for the 
7. The beneficiary 's certificate of contribution to the 
and the Test Event for 
8. The beneficiary 's certificate of participation from the 
9. The beneficiary 's diploma of contribution at the 
10. The beneficiary ' s certificate of completion for the 
11. The beneficiary's 
12. The beneficiary 's internship certificate at the 
13. The beneficiary 's internship certificate at 
14. The beneficiary's 
15. The beneficiary's 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
16. Various articles regarding the • at the 
17. Various articles regarding the beneficiary's selection as a at the 
18. An article co-authored by the beneficiary entitled ' 
19. An article co-authored by the beneficiary entitled 
and, 
20. Chapter written by beneficiary in the book 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE), advising the petitioner that the evidence submitted was deficient 
to establish the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability. In the RFE, the director also stated that, the 
specific duties of the offered position combined with the nature of the petitioner's business appear to indicate the 
proffered position closely relates to a travel agent position. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner stated, in part: 
With due respect, we also must stress the fact that, despite the employer [petitioner] is basically a 
travel agency, the field of endeavor [the beneficiary] seeks classification is a "Special Program 
Director." Specifically , the petitioner-employer wants to hire [the beneficiary] to organize and 
supervise sports tours, starting with a golf tour of the Chinese golf lovers. So we should keep 
this in mind when evaluating [the beneficiary's] petition [sic]. 
In addition , the petitioner clarified that the beneficiary meets the eligibility criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(1)(ii)(B)(l), (3) , (5), and ( 6). The petitioner also asserted that the evidence should be considered as 
"co mparable evidence " under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(C). 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted: 
1. Letter of support from Chairman of attesting to the 
beneficiary's expertise in the field of"golftourism; " 
2. Invitation to the of 
3. Evidence of media coverage of the beneficiary; and 
4. The beneficiary's 
The director denied the petition. First, the director observed that the record was unclear as to what is the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor, which is relevant to the requirement that the beneficiary come to the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinar y ability. Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A)(l). The director indicated that the beneficiary's field of endeavor appears to be "travel 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
agency" or "special theme tours director. "1 The director then evaluated the beneficiary's eligibility under the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(B), and concluded that the benef iciary met none of the six 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(1 )(ii)(B). The director also concluded that the petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the "comparable evidence " provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(C). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director "has failed to acknowledge the clear connection of the 
beneficiary's talents with the field of endeavor of the job offer from [the petitioner]." The petitioner also 
asserts that the director "fa iled to acknowledge the fact that [the beneficiary] has established herself as a 
person with extraordinary talents in sports culture and is perfect for the temporary job as the special theme 
tours program director for [the petitioner] ." 
With respect to the beneficiary's field of endeavor, the petitioner claims that the director defined the field of 
endeavor too narrowly as a "travel agency." The petitioner states that the beneficiary's "real" field of 
endeavor is "'s pecial theme tours ,' specifically organizing a golf tour." The petitioner asserts that, despite the 
fact that its business is "basically a travel agency," the beneficiary's field of endeavor as a "special program 
director " requires the beneficiary to "organize and supervise sports tour s, starting with a golf tour of the 
Chinese golf lovers [and] high achievements, education and training in sports and experience and ability in 
organizing cross-culture events [sic]." The petitioner asserts: 
It must be stressed that the job [the beneficiary] is offered has gone beyond a mere sport tour 
arrangement or scheduling that a normal travel agency can handle, it is a sport culture 
exchange that needs the organizer equipped with much higher qualities. As the petitioner 
stated in its petition letter that it is the first of this kind of theme tour seen in this industry in 
southern California, and a success of this tour will help to establish a new revolutionary trend 
in cultural tourism. Therefore, when and only when we classify the petition in this 
perspective, we can make more pertinent analysis of the petition, especially the qualifications 
of the beneficiary. 
Upon review of the record , and for the reasons discussed herein, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has 
failed to establish the beneficiary' s eligibility for the classification sought. 
At the outset, the AAO agrees with the director that the record is unclear as to the precise parameters of the 
beneficiary 's field of endeavor. Jn the petitioner 's letter submitted with the initial petition, the petitioner did 
not identify the beneficiary's field of endeavor , but described itself as a travel agency and the beneficiary's 
job duties as "creating theme tours. " In the letter of support from the beneficiary 's field of 
endeavor is listed as "cultural exchange through sports events." In the letter of support from the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor is listed as "golf tourism, event management. " In the letter of support from 
the beneficiary's field of endeavor is listed as "cultural exchange and entertainment." In the 
beneficiary 's "Statement of Accomplishments, " she does not specifically identify her field of endeavor, but 
describes her experience and knowledge of "sport management," "golf management and sport tourism," and "golf 
1 Both the director and the petitioner confuse the concepts of "field of endeavor" and job title. 
(b)(6)
Page ':J 
tourism business. " In response to the RFE, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's field of endeavor is 
"Special Program Director ," and that it wants to hire the beneficiary to "organize and supervise sports tours, 
starting with a golf tour of the Chinese golf lovers [sic]." ln the letter of support from the beneficiary's 
field of endeavor is identified as "golf tourism." On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's field of 
endeavor is not a travel agent, but "a program director of 'special theme tours ', specifically organizing a golf tour 
is the real ' field of endeavor." ' The petitioner then asserts on appeal that the beneficiary has extraordinary 
talents in "sports culture," and that the petitioner seeks to establish a new trend in "cultural tourism." 
In review, the petitioner has claimed several different fields of endeavor: sports tourism (which includes golf 
tourism); sports management (which includes golf management) ; event management; cultural exchange; special 
theme tours; and, entertainment. While these fields of endeavor may all share common characteristics, each 
field is nevertheless a distinct and separate field of endeavor. The petitioner may not change its 
characterization of the beneficiary 's " real" field of endeavor depending on which characterization best fits a 
particular piece of evidence. If the petitioner chooses to represent the beneficiary's fields of endeavor as all 
of the above, then the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary has extraordinary ability in all of the above 
fields. Nonetheless, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability in 
any one of the above fields of endeavor. 
For the purposes of this decision, the AAO will analyze the beneficiary 's field of endeavor as sports tourism 
(including golf tourism) , which relates to the activities of organizing and supervising sports-themed tours. 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Regulatory Criteria 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major , internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. !d. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary can meet 
this criterion . 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has claimed eligibility under the criteria 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(l)(ii)(B)(l), (3), (5), and (6), as well as the "comparable evidence " provision at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(l)(ii)(C) . The remaining criteria will not be discussed . 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
As evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(B)(l) , the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary was chosen as a 
Anniversary Celebration of the 
for the , and was invited to attend the Fifth 
The petitioner also submitted various certificates the 
(b)(6)
Page lU 
beneficiary has received, such as her Referee Qualification Certificate by the 
internship certificate at the 
In the denial, the director determined that the beneficiary 's honor of being chosen as an 
and her 
and her various certificates do not directly relat e to the field of endeavor as a travel agent. The director also 
determined that the petitioner failed to establish how the evidence qualifies the beneficiary as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. Specifically,the director found that the beneficiary's selection to be a in the 
was unrelated to her field of endeavor. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's 
selection as a and her various certificates are directly relevant to her field of endeavor, stating: 
is the most celebrated sports event in the world and the honor of being chosen from 
1.4 billion people as a should suggests the recognition of [the beneficiary 's] 
overall achievement s at a national level. Again , the position that [the beneficiary] is hired for 
is an organizer of sport tours from China. [The beneficiary 's] being a on the 
most grandiose world sport stage should certainly be considered directly relative to her field 
of endeavor. Also , since the first sport tour [the petitioner] is to organize is a golf tour made 
of Chinese golf fans, [the beneficiary's] reception of certificates such as Golf Referee 
Qualification Certificate by the and 
become extremely relevant ... We firmly believe that 
with all the honors and experiences [the beneficiary] has received in relation to golf sport, she 
will certainly be capable to do very well in organizing the golf tours for [the petitioner] [sic]. 
Upon review, the AAO agrees that the submitted evidence does not establish that the benefici ary has been 
recognized for excellence in her field of endeavor. 
The petitioner has not establish ed that the beneficiary 's selection as an is directly 
relevant to the field of sport s touri sm. While the and sports tourism both involve sports in some 
way, they are significantly different in nature. The is a sports event featuring sports competition, 
where as sports tourism is the business of organizing and supervising sports-themed leisure tours for visitors. 
Similarly , the beneficiary's Refer ee Qualification Certificate by the and internship 
certificate at a golf championship game is not directly relevant to the field of sports tourism. Merely 
establishing that the beneficiary's honors and certificates are generally related to sports or golf as a whole is 
insufficient to establish that they are directly related to the field of sports tourism. See Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
Supp.2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (affirming that the "area" of athletics should not be considered as a whole 
to include every occupation involving athletics, and that the beneficiary 's extraordinary ability as a baseball 
player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager , umpire or coach). 
Specifically, the petitioner has failed to establish how being chosen as an constitutes an 
"award for excellence in the field of endeavor," as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(1)(ii)(B)(l). Jn order to be an "awa rd for excellence in the field of endeavor," the award must have 
been given to a beneficiary primarily in recognition of her exc ellenc e in the field of ende avor. The evidence 
(b)(6)
Page ll 
reflects that the beneficiary was chosen as a by a TV audience, but the petitioner has not 
explained and documented what specific criteria the TV audience used to select her. The AAO observes that 
the petitioner's article states that the public 
selection process for the "aimed at nominating ordinary individuals." 
The petitioner has submitted no evidence to establish that the beneficiary was selected as a based 
upon the TV audience's recognition of her excellence in the field of sports tourism. 
The petitioner also failed to establish that the beneficiary's various internship and volunteer certificates, or her 
golf referee certificate, constitute "awards for excellence in the field of endeavor" as required by the plain 
language of the criterion. The beneficiary's internship and volunteer certificates merely recognize her 
participation in the various events; they do not state or indicate that the beneficiary was individually 
recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. For example, the beneficiary's internship certificate from 
the states that the beneficiary "was the Assistant of 
Competition Director from March to July 2008," and provided a brief description of her duties. 
The certificate makes no statement as to the beneficiary's excellence in the field of sports tourism . Similarly , 
the beneficiary's Referee Qualification Certificate states only that the beneficiary "has passed the 
comprehensive assessment, hereby is registered the title of sic]." Again, the 
award makes no statement as to the beneficiary's excellence in the field of sports tourism. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that, "with all the honors and experiences [the beneficiary] has received in 
relation to golf sport, she will certainly be capable to do very well in organizing the golf tours for [the 
petitioner] [sic]." The AAO does not dispute the petitioner 's assertion that the beneficiary is well qualified 
for the proffered position. However, merely establishing that the beneficiary is well qualified for the 
proffered position does not automaticaHy establish that the beneficiary possesses extraordinary ability in her 
field of endeavor. The visa classification demands a much higher showing than simply being well-equipped 
for a given occupation. Lee, 237 F. Supp.2d at 916. 
Overall, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has received any awards or prizes for 
excellence in the field of sports tourism. The petitioner has failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility 
under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(1)(ii)(B)(J). 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the 
alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought , which shall 
include the title, date, and author of such publish ed material , and any necessary translation 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3), it must be 
primarily "about" the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, relate to the beneficiary ' s work "i n the field for 
which classification is sought." The material must also have been published in major publications or major 
media. 
The petitioner has submitted several media reports about the beneficiary, specifically focusing on her selection as 
a While these reports are primarily about the beneficiary and were 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
published in major publications or media, these reports do not relate to the beneficiary 's work " in the field for 
which classification is sought. " As discussed above under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), the 
beneficiary's selection as an is not directly relevant to the beneficiary's field of endeavor 
in sports tourism. The mere fact that both the and sports tourism involve sports in some way does 
not establish that they constitute the same field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted media articles about the beneficiary, specifically focusing on her volunteer activity 
during the These articles indicate that the beneficiary 's 
volunteer duties during the consisted of translating materials 
into English and reporting. Again , while these reports are primarily about the beneficiary and were published in 
major publications or media, these reports do not relate to the beneficiary ' s work "in the field for which 
classification is sought." 
The petitioner submitted several media articles about the at the 
that briefly quoted or mentioned the beneficiary as one of the initiators of this event. These articles 
are not primarily "about" the beneficiary; rather, they are primarily "a bout" the 
event. Even though these articles mention the beneficiary, the submission of evidence that simply 
mentions the beneficiary's name , quote s the beneficiary , or is not otherwise primarily about the beneficiary 
fails to constitute published material "about the alien," as required by the plain language at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J). See Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2008 WL 2354694 (D. Nev.) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not "about " the actor). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the media reports about the are related to 
the beneficiary 's field of endeavor because " [t]he success of the event shows [the beneficiary 's] ability of 
organizing a cross-cultural event .. . [and the) position [the beneficiary) is being offered from [the petitioner], 
again, is to organize cultural/sports tours." However, the petitioner's explanation still fails to explain how the 
media reports about the satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3) , which requires the media reports to be "about" the beneficiary . The petitioner has 
failed to meet this threshold showing. The petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-relat ed contributions of major 
significance in the field 
As evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), the petitioner submitted evidence of the 
beneficiary's volunteer work including at the 
and the In the denial, the director 
concluded that the petitioner failed to establish how the beneficiary 's volunteer work can be considered 
original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director "failed to give due acknowledgement of the beneficiary 's 
unique contribution to sports in general as well as the Sino-U .S. cultural exchange. " The petitioner asserts 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
that the beneficiary's achievements and contributions should be viewed from the perspective of their "social 
significance ... in today 's Chinese society. " The petitioner asserts that , through her volunteer work, the 
beneficiary is a "model figure" for the younger Chinese generation that feels "lost and aimless in today's all­
go-for-money social mentality ." With particular respect to the beneficiary's volunteer work at the 
the petitioner asserts that this event "stands out as a unique contribution to the sports 
and cultural exchange between the U.S. and China" because it "drew the attention from both nations' young 
students to something that is more fundamental and valuable than the mere economic benefits /conflicts 
between these two nations ." 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's volunteer work can be considered original, scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field of sports tourism. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), an alien ' s contributions must be scientific, 
scholarly, or business-related , and be in the field of endeavor. The petitioner has not established how the 
beneficiary's volunteer activities at a student and sporting events constitute "scientific, scholarly, or business­
related contributions. " Furthermore, the petitioner has not established how the beneficiary has made 
contributions to the field of sport s tourism. Instead , the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has made 
contributions to "sports in general " and to "today ' s Chinese society." The petitioner does not specifically 
explain how the beneficiary has made contributions to the field of sports tourism. See Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
Supp.2d 914, 918 (N.D . Ill. 2002) (affirming that the "area" of athletics should not be considered as a whole 
to include every occupation involving athletics). 
Moreover, according to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) , an alien ' s contributions must be of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and , thus , that it 
has some meaning. The petitioner has not established how the beneficiary's limited volunteer activity at 
sporting events and a student event constitutes contributions of "major significance " in the field of sports 
tourism . Specifically , the petitioner has not established how the beneficiary's being a single 111 
the constitutes a contribution of "major significance " to sports tourism as a whole. 
Likewise, the petitioner has not established how a single student event held during a volleyball match at a 
single university in the United States constitutes a contribution of "major significance" to sports tourism as a 
whole. The petitioner ' s vague and general assertions regarding the value of the beneficiary ' s volunteer work 
to "sports in general" or "Chinese society" as a whole is insufficient to establish eligibility under this 
criterion. The petitioner has not established eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in professional journals , 
or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has authored or co-authored three articles: ' 
and a chapter in the boo 
The director determined that the above articles do not appear to primarily relate to the travel 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
agency field. Furthermore, the director determined that the above articles are not scholarly articles in the field in 
professional journals, or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "all three articles are sports related and thus related to the field of 
endeavor of [the beneficiary] as a sports tour program director." The petitioner suggests that, whereas an 
academic professor or researcher would certainly publish scholarly articles, the beneficiary 's position as a 
sport tour organizer requires that her publications "be evaluated as to see whether the published articles reflect 
the unique qualifications needed for this position. " The petitioner then explains that while the beneficiary's 
articles "may not be scholarly in the sense that it is not written as a study of certain sport theory, but it is an 
indication that [the beneficiary] has an extraordinary sense of approaching sports as the most effective means 
of revealing the deepest humanity in all of us and connecting people from all the races. This sense is really a 
great qualification for a travel agency working as a sport tour director [sic]." 
The AAO finds that the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary's articles: are scholarly articles; are 
in the field of sports tourism; and are published in professional journals or other major media. First, with regards 
to the requirement of scholarly articles , the petitioner has conceded that the beneficiary's articles are not 
"scholarly articles" pursuant to the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6). The petitioner's 
request to evaluate the beneficiary 's articles "to see whether the published articles reflect the unique 
qualifications needed for this position" is unsupported by the plain language of the regulation or any citations 
to legal authority. Second , the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary's articles are in the field of 
sports tourism. Merely asserting that the articles are "sports related" is insufficient to establish that they are in 
the specific field of sports tourism . Finally , the petitioner provided no claims or evidence regarding whether 
the beneficiary's articles were published in professional journals or other major media. The petitioner has not 
submitted any evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 6). 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) provides that an alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, 
education, business or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for 
achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of receipt of a major internationally recognized award 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or by submitting evidence to satisfy at least three of the eight forms of 
documentation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We further acknowledge that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides "[i]f the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of the section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility ." It is clear from the use of the word "must" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) that the rule, not the exception , 
is that the petitioner is required to submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. Thus , it is the 
petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation 
and how the evidence submitted rs "comparable " to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(B)(J) through (8). 
(b)(6)
PageD 
While the petitioner appears to claim eligibility under the "comparable evidence" regulation, it has also claimed 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), (3), (5) and (6). The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as the petitioner has not established that eligibility for 0-1 
classification in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by submitting documentation relevant to at 
least three of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). In fact, as indicated in this decision, the 
petitioner specifically asserts that it is submitting evidence relating to four of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). An inability to meet a criterion, however, is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does not 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation. Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence 
meeting three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Even if the petitioner were able to establish that comparable evidence could be considered in this case, the only 
document it has submitted as comparable evidence is the letter of support from Chairman of 
On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes the significance of this letter, in which Mr. discusses the 
petitioner's "wise and timely" business decision to develop golf tourism packages, and the beneficiary's "rare" and 
" ideal" qualifications for the proffered position. Mr. letter concludes: "ln summary , I strongly support [the 
beneficiary's] petition . It is not easy to find such an ideal and creative candidate for this position. 1 believe her 
exceptional marketing and event management skills, her understanding of business in both countries and her 
educational background will make her a great asset of [the petitioner]." However, this letter does not in any way 
establish that the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of sport tourism. This letter focuses only 
on the petitioner's business plans and the beneficiary ' s qualifications for the proffered position; it makes no 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's extraordinary ability in the field of sports tourism. The beneficiary's 
qualification for the proffered position, no matter how rare or ideal, is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary 
possesses extraordinary ability in her field of endeavor. 
c. Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets any of the eight categories 
of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) . Therefore, the proper conclusion is that petitioner has 
failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with 
the Kazarian opinion , the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under at least three of the 
criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Therefore, the AAO will not conduct a final 
merits determination? 
2 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future 
proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation , the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act ; DHS Delegation Number 0150 .1 (effective March 1, 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. In fact , the petitioner has not even articulated exactly what field of endeavor the 
beneficiary has extraordinary ability in and seeks to enter. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. The petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).