dismissed EB-1A Case: Acrobatic Performance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12846851 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an acrobatic performer , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has a qualifying one-time achievement (a major, 
internationally recognized award), or that he meets at least three of the ten alternate evidentiary criteria 
for this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an acrobatic gymnastics athlete who competed for I I in international 
competition between 2009 and 2015. Since 2016, he has been employed as an acrobatic performer in 
several circus arts roductions. C\mentl he is a memberof the cast oft I a live show f roducedl 
b which is in residence at 
,..__ _ __,ln~---~ 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and therefore 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 satisfied two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria related to 
lesser nationally and internationally recognized awards and high salary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
and (ix). The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that he met the criteria related to 
membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.4(h)(3)(ii), and 
performing in a leading or critical role for an organization that has a distinguished reputation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, the Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate 
that he meets either of these criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he has received a major, internationally recognized award in 
the sport of acrobatic gymnastics and can satisfy the initial evidence requirement based on this award 
alone. The Petitioner farther claims that he meets four of the alternate evidentiary criteria and is 
otherwise qualified for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
he garnered a major, internationally recognized award or that he satisfies the requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
2 
A. One-time Achievement 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner received a bronze medal in the b ~crobatic 
gymnastics event at the Ow orld Games competition held in I I in The etitioner 
contends that the Director erred in failing to recognize this medal as a major, internationally recognized 
award consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The evidence establishes that the World Games competition is officially recognized by the 
international governing body of the sport of gymnastics (International Gymnastics Federation or FIG). 
The evidence also demonstrates that acrobatic gymnastics, unlike several other gymnastic disciplines, 
is not an Olympic sport, and that the World Games (as well as World Championship and World Cup 
competitions) represent the highest level of international competition in acrobatics. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish that his bronze medal at the World Games 
constitutes a qualifying one-time achievement, the Director acknowledged that acrobatic gymnastics 
is not an Olympic sport. Nevertheless, the Director noted that "USCIS considers a one-time 
achievement in your field of athletics to be an Olympic Medal." 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that since acrobatic gymnastics is not an Olympic sport, an 
Olympic medal is not an applicable example of a major international award in his field, which he 
maintains is acrobatic gymnastics and not "athletics" in general. The Petitioner argues that, since 
many athletes are not eligible to compete in the Olympics based on their field, an Olympic medal 
should not be the only example of a qualifying one-time achievement in athletics . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[s]uch evidence shall include evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major internal[ly] recognized award)." While the regulation does not 
identify any qualifying award, the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example 
of a one-time achievement. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. We have consistently recognized other examples of 
a one-time achievement including the Pulitzer Prize, an Academy Award, and an Olympic medal. 
Further, we must look to Congress' intent that "admission under this category is to be reserved for that 
small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Id. Thus, 
consistent with legislative history, a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with 
only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. 
We note that the selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress indicated above, is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a 
familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally 
recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those 
elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope 
and internationally recognized, not just acknowledged within the field as its highest award . 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted several major media articles about the World Games, 
but this evidence does not establish that medals awarded at this event are accorded the same 
recognition associated with a one-time achievement or major, internationally recognized award. In 
fact, some the articles indicate the World Games' lesser recognition or standing. For example, an 
3 
article published by PRI (pri.org) about the 2009 World Games refers to it as "an obscure sporting 
event run under the patronage of the Olympic Committee but featuring non-Olympic sports" and notes 
that the World Games' motto "The World is Watching," was "clearly an overstatement or wishful 
thinking - no U.S. broadcaster picked up the games." The submitted media articles do not indicate 
that individual medal winners at the World Games receive broad major media recognition 
commensurate with that received by winners of Nobel Prizes, Olympic medals, Academy Awards or 
other major internationally recognized awards. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that this 
international event is recognized by the general public at a similar level. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner received a bronze medal at one of the major international competitions 
in acrobatic gymnastics, he did not establish that receipt of such an award necessarily qualifies as a 
one-time achievement, nor are we persuaded that the top award in any field qualifies as a one-time 
achievement. The fact that a major, internationally recognized award, such as an Olympic Medal, may 
not exist in a specific field does not mean that we should diminish the impressive nature of the one­
time achievement and accept a lesser award. In cases where one cannot obtain a one-time 
achievement, including instances where it is not available in a field, they "can also qualify on the basis 
of a career of acclaimed work in the field" by satisfying three of the ten categories of evidence. See 
H.R. Rep. at 59 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, awards that may be internationally recognized 
in the field do not necessarily demonstrate that they are also major or consistent with one-time 
achievements. In those instances, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) allows for a petitioner to 
submit lesser internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not 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). 
As noted, the Petitioner claims that he has submitted evidence to satisfy the criteria related to lesser 
nationally and internationally recognized awards, membership in an organization that requires 
outstanding achievements, perfo1ming in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation, and commanding a high salary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (viii) and (ix). 
Documentation of the individual'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 Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted evidence to satisfy this criterion. The record 
supports this conclusion. In addition to his bronze medal at thee=] World Games discussed above, 
the Petitioner provided evidence that he received bronze and silver medals at the c=J European 
Championship in acrobatic gymnastics, a bronze medal at theD_EI oprn Cham pt onshif' and gold 
medals at the Sports Acrobatics Championship~ I inLJ, , c=J and 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
4 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion as a former member of the I IN ational Senior 
Sports Acrobatics Team. A petitioner's participation as a member of a national team may demonstrate 
eligibility for this criterion, as such teams typically limit their number of members and have a rigorous 
selection process. It is the Petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that he meets every element of a 
given criterion. We will not assume that every "national team" is sufficiently exclusive and requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their fields or disciplines. 
Here, the Petitioner provided an attestation froml I Vice President of the 
Gymnastics Federation. I I confirms that the Petitioner was a member of th .--~~.........,f-N-a-t-io_n_a__Jl 
Senior Sports Acrobatics Team from July 2010 until December 2015 and represented I~--~ 
internationally in the men's group program. With respect to the team membership requirements, he states: 
In order to be included in thel !National Sports Acrobatics Team athletes must, 
at the minimum, be national champions in at least one program. In order to maintain his 
or her membership ... athletes must continue placing first at national sports acrobatics 
championships and cups. 
[The Petitioner] received numerous top place awards at I I national sports 
acrobatics championship anl is a several time sports acrobatics national champion and 
medalist in the years o toe=] These awards, as well as his international awards, 
secured [his] membership in the National Team for the time period specified above . 
.__ ___ __.I identifies members of the panel of judges at "the I I National Sports Acrobatics 
Championship where [the Petitioner] competed, secured first places and as a result earned membership 
in the National Team." 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml I of the World Olympic Gymnastics 
Academy, a Latvian native who coaches U.S.-based gymnastics and claims no affiliation with the 
I I Gymnastics Federation. I I states that "[ a ]thletes must earn their membership 
[ on a national team] through rigorous selection at national championships" and that the Petitioner 
"secured his place in thel !National Team when he won gold medals at national championships 
and cups." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged the letter from the I I Gymnastics 
Federation, but determined that the Petitioner had provided "no evidence" that he is a member of an 
association that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines. The Director asked that the Petitioner submit additional 
information, such as the association's constitution or bylaws, noting that the Petitioner must also establish 
that those responsible for admitting members are recognized national or international experts. In response 
to the RFE, Petitioner referred the Director to review the letters froml I andl I 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly weigh these letters or acknowledge that 
membership on thel !National Sports Acrobatics Team requires outstanding achievements of its 
members by only accepting national champions in the sport. We note that the Director stated in the denial 
that "[r]equirements that only include employment or activity in a given field; minimum education, 
experience or achievement, recommendations by colleagues or current members; or payment of dues do 
not satisfy this criterion." The Petitioner correctly notes that he did not claim or provide evidence that his 
membership on the national team in his sport was based on any of these factors. We also note that the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner provided "no evidence" of the requirements for membership 
was incorrect, given the contents of I ts letter, quoted above, and his position within the 
I !Gymnastics Federation. 
However, the Petitioner relies solely on the above-referenced letters in support of his claim that 
membership on the team requires an outstanding achievement, i.e., a national championship. Only 
one of the letters is from a person associated with the sport's national federation, and neither is 
sufficiently specific with respect to the national team membership requirements or selection processes. 
Notably, the record does not contain corroborating evidence, such as a translated copy of the ofiicial rules 
or selection procedures from the bylaws or constitution of thel I Gymnastics Federation, even 
though the Director specifically requested this type of evidence in the RFE. 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that his 
membership on the I I national team satisfies all elements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on his role as a performer in thej ~ --~lshow. 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. Regarding a 
critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 1 The Petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical 
for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from~I _____ _.I of.__ _________ _, ~---~ 
production company, who states: 
Inl I [the Petitioner] performs along with his partners seemingly impossible, 
gravity-defying feats, exhibiting the strength, flexibility and balance of a world-class 
acrobatic gymnasts. [The Petitioner's] act is a jewel of the entire production and it is 
definitely one of the audience's most favorite. The image capturing [the Petitioner's] 
1 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 ADJ 1-14 IO (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
6 
amazing acrobatic routines had been used extensively in show promotions - from 
billboards acros~ I to advertisements on city cabs to gigantic screens lighting 
upl I As a starring member of the cast, he clearly plays a critical role for the 
entire production, contributing greatly to the commercial and artistic success of 
I 
The Petitioner also provided a letter froml I, a head coach with I O IEntertainment 
Group, who states that he has seen the Petitioner's performance inl land "can confirm that he does 
play a critical role in this show and is a critical member of the show's acrobatic troupe," noting that "the 
audience alwa s reacts in awe to his erformances." Similarly,! I head acrobatics 
coach withL-----r-----,_ _ ____J states that the Petitioner "has been in the spotlight of the 
internationally acclaime_,__ __ __.show," notes that he has seen his performance, and "can attest to his 
role in this show as in fact critical." I I further states that he performs in a "key, featured 
act" that "would be impossible without his contribution." 
The Director acknowledged this evidence, but found that the letters provided did not provide detailed and 
probative information that specifically addressed how the Petitioner's role is leading or critical to the 
extent that he is responsible for an organization's success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical." The Director noted that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that 
distinguished him from other performers in the production and observed that he did not provide any 
additional evidence in response to the RFE. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the submitted letters 
are sufficient to establish that his role is critical tol lwhich he refers to as "an artistic venue of 
distinguished reputation." 
The evidence establishes that I I is an acclaimed live production but does not establish that it is an 
"organization or establishment" as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Petitioner is remunerated 
for his services by one of the show's production companiel'J I The Petitioner 
has not claimed or submitted evidence to establish that he serves in a leading or critical role for this 
organization as a whole as a member of the acrobatic troupe in one of its productions. 
Further, even if we concluded thatl I is an "organization or establishment," we agree with the 
Director's determination that the letter from the show's producer does not contain detailed and probative 
information that specificall] addresses how the Petitioner's performance in his role is leading or critical 
to the show. I states that the Petitioner's act is "a jewel of the entire production" and an 
audience favorite and notes that the act appears in the show's promotional materials. However, the record 
does not contain, for example, critical reviews mentioning the Petitioner's act or copies of the referenced 
advertising. We acknowledge his statement that the Petitioner is a "starring member of the cast," but the 
record does not include evidence that would allow a comparison of the Petitioner's four-person act to that 
of other performers in the show, such that we could determine that he has a lead role. I lalso 
does not provide any further explanation for his statement that the Petitioner has been "contributing 
greatly to the commercial and artistic success ofj I" 
The testimonial evidence establishes that the Petitioner is a talented acrobatic performer whose technical 
skills are critical to his specific group act inl I but do not establish how this act, or the Petitioner 
individually, serves in a critical role for the overall production to the extent that his performance is of 
7 
significant importance to the outcome of its activities. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. For the reasons discussed below, we will 
withdraw that determination. 
The Petitioner provided copies of his pay statements and his IRS Form 1099-Misc, Miscellaneous 
Income, indicating thatj I a producer ofl I paid him $98,240 in 2019. 
The Petitioner's Performer Agreement with~-------~indicates that he is paid $1,000 for 
each "rehearsal week" (up to six weeks per year) and $1,800 per "performance week." According to 
the agreement's terms, a "performance week" includes up to ten performances per week, as well as up 
to 10 hours of rehearsals, and all pre- and post-show activities required by the producer. The 
agreement does not identify an hourly rate of pay. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that his pay statements show demonstrate that he receives an hourly wage 
of $180 and works 10 hours per week. While most of these statements indicate a "show" rate of $180 
and state that he is compensated for 10 hours per week at this rate, as noted, his performer agreement 
does not identify an hourly rate or indicate that he is paid by the hour. Based on the terms of the 
agreement, the Petitioner's $1800 weekly rate requires him to devote significantly more than 10 hours 
per week to the I I production. The record therefore does not support a conclusion that he 
receives an hourly pay of $180, nor can we determine his actual hourly pay absent a more detailed 
breakdown of how many hours he works per week. 
The Petitioner provided comparative wage data from several sources in support of his claim that he 
has commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) show that "Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers, All Other" 
earned a mean hourly wage of $21.53, with the top ten percent earning at least $42.47 Jer hour, 
nationally, in 2018. The submitted BLS data also shows that mean wages inl a more 
appropriate comparison based on the Petitioner's work location, are $48.95, but the Petitioner did not 
provide data regarding high wage earners in this geographic area. Nevertheless, for the reasons 
discussed above, the evidence provided does not clearly identify the Petitioner's hourly wage or the 
number of hours he works per week. 
Information the Petitioner obtained from Payscale indicates that the average circus performer earns 
an annual salary of $39,548, with the top 10% of earners receiving $70,000 or more annually in salary 
and "total pay" as high as $87,000. However, we note that this data is based on information obtained 
from only 14 individuals and may not reliably represent industry salaries, particularly in thd I 
metropolitan area where, according to the BLS data discussed above, average hourly wages are more 
than twice the national average. 
The third and final source the Petitioner provided is an article titled "Becoming a Circus Performer" 
published by the website KidzWorld in December 2017. The article features an interview with a 
8 
Cirque du Soleil acrobat and dancer who indicates that she is required to work "a lot oflong hours and 
weekends." The article states that "featured performers like acrobats, contortionists or trapeze artists 
can make between $40,000 and $70,000 a year" but does not cite a source for these figures. 
Although the Petitioner emphasizes that an hourly wage provides the most appropriate comparison to 
others in his occupation, the evidence does not clearly establish what he earns on an hourly basis, or 
how many hours he works per week. Nor did he provide sufficient evidence that would allow us to 
compare his wages to those earned by others in similar positions in the same geographic area. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets the high salary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
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 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). 
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. 
9