dismissed EB-1A Case: Acrobatics

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 0 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelawin reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthat you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motionto reconsideror a motionto
reopenin accordancewith theinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof
$630.Thespecificrequirementsfor filing suchamotioncanbefoundat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do notfile
any motion directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany
motiontobefiledwithin30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis,gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,onJune27,2011,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on
appeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability asan acrobat. The directordeterminedthatthe petitionerhadnot
establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability and failed to submitextensivedocumentationof
sustainednationalorinternationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of hisor herachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The
petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,counselclaimsthatthepetitionerreceiveda one-timeachievementandmeetsat least
threeof theregulatorycriteriaat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
L LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available. . . to qualified
immigrantswho arealiensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. -- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) the alienhasextraordinaryability in the sciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto
continueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101®'Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonlytothoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof thefieldof
endeavor.Id.; 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's
sustainedacclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe
establishedeitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)or throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof theten
categoriesof evidencelistedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.' With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcemsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-
22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedonanimproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(whichthe AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedtosubmitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citing to 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewthe
evidenceundertheplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnot
submitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitioner
hasfailedto satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
II. ANALYSIS
Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
A. One-TimeAchievement
Thedirectordeterminedthatthe petitionerfailedto establishthathehada one-timeachievement
pursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Onappeal,counselclaimsthatthe"[d]irector
erredin concludingthattwo silvermedalsfrom [the] Volkov Cuparenot a majorinternationally
recognizedeventin sportsacrobatics,a non-Olympicdiscipline." A review of the recordof
proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentaryevidencereflectingthathe
placedsecondat the2002and2005Volkov Cup. Therefore,theremainingissueis whetherthe
petitioner'ssecondplacefinishesattheVolkovCupareconsideredone-timeachievements;thatis,
major,internationallyrecognizedawards.
of the recordof proceedingreflectsthat the petitionersubmitteda letter from
(Realis Gymnastics Accademy, LLC), screenshots from http://pravda.ru,
www.acrobaticsports.com,andaninvitationletteranddirectivesfor the2009Volkov Cup. While
opinedthatthe "Volkov Cupis considereda WorldCupin SportsAcrobatics"and
"athletesfrom manycountriescompeted,"lettersmay generallybe divided into two typesof
testimonialevidence:expertopinionevidenceandwrittentestimonialevidence.Opiniontestimony
is basedon one'swell-qualifiedbelief or idea,ratherthandirectknowledgeof thefactsatissue.
Black'sLaw Dictionary1515(8thEd. 2007)(defining"opiniontestimony").Writtentestimonial
evidence,ontheotherhand,is testimonyaboutfacts,suchaswhethersomethingoccurredor didnot
occur,basedon the witness'directknowledge.Id. (defining"written testimony");seealsoid at
1514(defining"affirmativetestimony"). Moreover,dependingon the specificity,detail, and
credibility of a letter, USCIS may give the documentmore or lesspersuasiveweight in a
proceeding.TheBoardof ImmigrationAppeals(theBoard)hasheldthattestimonyshouldnotbe
disregardedsimplybecauseit is "self-serving."See,e.g_MatterofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec.1328,1332
(BIA 2000)(citingcases).TheBoardalsoheld,however:"We notonlyencourage,but requirethe
introductionof corroborativetestimonialand documentaryevidence,whereavailable."Id. If
testimonialevidencelacksspecificity,detail,or credibility,thereis a greaterneedfor thepetitioner
to submitcorroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B-,21I&N Dec.1136(BIA 1998).
failed to provide specificinformationdemonstratingthat awardsreceivedfrom the
Volkov Cup canbeconsideredmajor, internationallyrecognizedawards. Further,theAAO is not
persuadedthateveryawardthatis receivedfrom acompetition"whereathletesfrommanycountries
competed"automaticallyequatesto a major,internationallyrecognizedaward. In addition,the
screenshotsdo not establishthatthepetitioner'ssecondplacefinishescanbeconsideredone-time
achievementspursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Accordingto the screenshot
from www.pravda.ruof an articledatedAugust 19, 2002,"[t]he competitionfor the Vladislav
Volkovcuphasnotbeenheldfor severalyears,"andthescreenshotfromwww.acrobaticsports.com
of anarticledatedSeptember2, 2006,reflectsthat"[t]he resultsof thisVolkovCupwill beusedto
selectthe Russianteamthat will competeat the upcomingEuropeanTeam Championship."
Consideringthe fact that the Volkov Cup hasnot consistentlybeenheld and appearsto be a
qualifyingcompetitionfortheEuropeanTeamChampionship,anyawardsfromtheVolkovCupfall
farshortin establishingthattheyaremajor,internationallyrecognizedawards.
Page5
GivenCongress'intentto restrictthis categoryto "that smallpercentageof individualswhohave
risento theverytopof theirfield of endeavor,"theregulationpermittingeligibility basedonaone-
timeachievementmustbeinterpretedverynarrowly,withonlyasmallhandfulof awardsqualifying
asmajor,internationallyrecognizedawards.SeeH.R.Rep.101-723,59(Sept.19,1990),reprinted
in 1990U.S.C.C.A.N.6710,1990WL 200418at*6739.GiventhattheHouseReportspecifically
citedto theNobelPrizeasanexampleof a one-timeachievement,examplesof one-timeawards
whichenjoymajor,intemationalrecognitionmayincludethePulitzerPrize,theAcademyAward,
and (most relevantfor athletics)an Olympic Medal. The regulationis consistentwith this
legislativehistory,statingthata one-timeachievementmustbeamajor,internationallyrecognized
award. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). The selectionof Nobel Laureates,the exampleprovidedby
Congress,is reportedin thetopmediainternationallyregardlessof thenationalityof theawardees,
is afamiliarnametothepublicatlargeandincludesalargecashprize.
While an internationallyrecognizedawardcouldconceivablyconstitutea one-timeachievement
withoutmeetingall of thoseelements,it is clearfrom theexampleprovidedby Congressthatthe
awardmustbe globalin scopeandinternationallyrecognizedin thealien'sfield asoneof thetop
awardsin that field. TheAAO is not persuadedthat the petitioner'ssecondplacefinishesare
remotelycomparableto suchmajor,internationallyrecognizedawardsasthe PulitzerPrize,the
AcademyAward,or anOlympicMedal.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathehada one-timeachievementpursuantto the
regulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
B. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsf or excellencein thefield of endeavor.
In thedirector'sdecision,shedeterminedthatthepetitionerestablishedeligibility for thiscriterion.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien's receiptof lessernationallyor intemationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein
thefield of endeavor."A reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionersubmitted
sufficientdocumentaryevidenceto minimally meettheplainlanguageof thisregulatorycriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerestablishedthathemeetsthis criterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,which require outstandingachievementsof their members,
asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields.
2On appeal,thepetitionerdoesnot claim to meetany of the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page6
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerestablishedeligibilityfor this criterionbasedon his
membershipwith theNationalTeamof theRepublicof Kazakhstanfrom 1998to 2006. Theplain
languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requires"[d]ocumentationof thealien's
membershipin associationsin the field for which is classificationis sought,which require
outstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor international
expertsin their disciplinesor fields." Althoughthe AAO concurswith the directorthat the
petitioner'smembershipwith theRepublicof Kazakhstan'snationalteammeetstheelementsof this
criterion,theAAO mustwithdrawthefindingsof thedirector.
Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct requiresthesubmissionof extensiveevidence.Consistentwith
thatstatutoryrequirement,theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii)requires
membershipin more than one association. Significantly,not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)arewordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)
and(ix) onlyrequireserviceon a singlejudgingpanelor a singlehigh salary.Whena regulatory
criterionwishesto includethesingularwithin theplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat 8
C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)."Thus,the
AAO caninfer thatthe plural in the remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a different
context,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe
singularorpluralisusedin aregulation.SeeMaramjayav. USC1S,Civ.Act.No. 06-2158(RCL)at
12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,'2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or.
Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthat the regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor's
degreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat8C.F.R.§204.5(1)(2)requiresasingledegreeratherthan
acombinationof academiccredentials).Here,thepetitionerclaimedhiseligibility forthiscriterion
basedonhismembershipwith onlyoneassociation.
A reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatatthe initial filing of thepetition,counselalso
claimedthepetitioner'seligibility for thiscriterionbasedonhisemploymentwith Cir uedu Soleil
andsubmittedanemploymentcontractanda letterfrom
whostated:
In termsof our recruitingperformingartists,coachesand othersupportpersonnel,
Cirquedu Soleillooksspecificallyfor thosewhoareattheverytopof theirchosen
fields,whethertheyareperformers,coaches,designers,or musicians.Eachyear,
Cirque du Soleil's talent scoutscrossthe globe,searchingfor the world's top
performersandpersonnel. In any given year,over 8,000candidates(all-highly
skilled)auditionfor Cirquedu Soleil'scastingdepaitment.However,on average,
between100and150(roughly1.25-1.875%)areaskedto stayandtrainatourstudio
in Montreal.Of these,somestill will nevermakeit tothestage.
Cirquedu Soleil'scastingmethodsarehighlyrigorous,whichhelpsto ensurethat
our showshaveonly the bestof the given discipline. Many of our artistsand
coacheshavewonOlympicmedalsorinternationalchampionships(somedisciplines
arenotOlympicsports).
Page7
Again,theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requires"[d]ocumentation
of the alien'smembershipin associationsin the field for whichis classificationis sought,which
require outstandingachievementsof their members,as judged by recognizednational or
internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor fields[emphasisadded]." Here,thepetitioneris not a
memberof Cirquedu Soleil;ratherthe petitioneris an employeeof Cirquedu Soleil. In other
words,thepetitionerwasnot grantedmembershipto Cirquedu Soleil;insteadthepetitionerwas
hiredtoperformforCirqueduSoleil.
Furthermore,in orderto demonstratethat membershipin an associationmeetsthis criterion,a
petitionermustshowthattheassociationrequiresoutstandingachievementasanessentialcondition
for admissionto membership.Theoverallprestigeof a givenassociationis notdeterminative;the
issuehereis membershiprequirementsratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.While
Mindicated thatCirquedu Soleilhasa "highly rigorous"castingmethod,he did not indicate
that outstandingachievements,asjudgedby recognizednationalor intemationalexpertsin their
disciplinesor fields,arerequiredfor employmentwith Cirquedu Soleil. Although
indicatedthatmanyof its artistswonOlympicmedalsor intemationalchampionships,thereis no
evidenceto establishthat employmentwith Cirquedu Soleilrequiresoutstandingachievements.
The fact thatsomeemployeeswith Cirquedu SoleilareOlympicmedalistsdoesnot necessarily
mean that the associationrequiresoutstandingachievementsas an essentialcondition for
employment.In addition failedto establishwhetherthehiringcommitteeis comprised
of recognizednationalorinternationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor fields.
Recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin the field do notjudgethe achievementsof circus
hopefuls. Rather,they are selectedfor the circusby the equivalentof castingdirectors,or, in
smallercircuses,theowner.WhiletheAAO doesnotquestionthatauditionstotourwith Cirquedu
Soleilareverycompetitive,beinghiredfor ajob in one'sfield is simplyevidenceof anabilityto
work in one's field. Employment,even in a highly competitiveindustry,is not evidenceof
membershipin associationswhichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembersasjudgedby
recognizednationalor internationalexperts.
For thereasonsdiscussedabove,thepetitionerfailed to establishthat his employmentwith Circus
du Soleilmeetstheplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As thepetitioner
claimedeligibilityfor thiscriterionbasedononlyoneassociation,theAAO withdrawsthedecision
of thedirectorfor this criterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsofmajor significancein thefield.
Althougha reviewof therecordof proceedingfailsto reflectthatthepetitionerclaimedeligibility
for this criterionat the initial filing of the petitionor in responseto the director'srequestfor
Page8
additionalevidencepursuantto theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8),thedirectordeterminedthat
thepetitionerfailedto establisheligibilityfor thiscriterion.Onappeal,counselstates:
Evidencesubmittedto meetthe 'leadingor criticalrole' criterion,whichpetitioner
claimed,waserroneouslyappliedto thecriterionof 'originalcontributionsof major
significance,'whichpetitionerneverclaimed.
As counseldoesnot claim on appealthe petitioner'seligibility for the original contributions
criterion,theAAO, therefore,considersthiscriterionto beabandoned.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'y
Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir.2005);Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL
4711885at*l, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff'sclaimstobeabandoned
ashefailedtoraisethemonappealtotheAAO).
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
The directordeterminedthat"[n]o evidencehasbeenprovidedfor this criterion." As discussed
underthepreviouscriterion,counselassertsthatthepetitionerclaimedeligibility for thiscriterion.
However,areviewof therecordof proceedingfailsto reflectthatthepetitionerclaimedeligibility
for this criterionat the initial filing of the petitionor in responseto the director'srequestfor
additionalevidence,nordid counselspecifyon appealwhichevidencewassubmittedandhowthe
petitionerqualifiesfor this criterion. A passingreferencewithout substantiveargumentsis
insufficientto raisethatgroundon appeal. Desravinesv. U.S.Atry.Gen.,343Fed.Appx.433,435
(1l'' Cir. 2009).
Notwithstandingtheabove,therecordof proceedingcontainsaletterfrom
of SimplyCircus,Inc.,who providedhis personalexpertstatement"to address[thepetitioner's]
qualifications,thesignificanceof his membershipin the castof Kooza,Cir uedu Soleil andthe
significanceof his role for this ma'or touring attraction." A review of opinion
statementappearsto reflectthat wasaskedto reviewselecteddocumentaryevidenceand
providehis professionalopinion. It doesnot appearthat was awareof the petitioner
prior to being contactedfor his opinion. His determinationthat the petitioneris an alien of
extraordinaryabilityis notbasedonhispriorknowledgeof thepetitioneror hisworkbutmerelyon
theevaluationof thedocumentsgiventohim.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[e]videncethatthe
alienhasperformedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea
distinguishedreputation[emphasisadded]." In general,a leadingrole is evidencedfrom therole
itself,andacriticalroleisonein whichthealienwasresponsiblefor thesuccessor standingof the
organizationor establishment. In reviewing letter, he basedhis opinion on
assumptionsof the petitioner'srole with Cirquedu Soleil ratherthan factualaccountsof the
petitioner'sleadingor criticalrole. Forexample, stated:
Page9
WhileI cannotspeakfor CirqueduSoleil,I stronglybelievethat[thepetitioner's]
remarkableaccomplishmentsasa sportacrobatareamongthekeyreasonswhyhe
wasofferedtheopportunitytobecomeoneof CirqueduSoleil'sperformers,andasI
am sureyouknow,Cirquedu Soleilis knownworld-widefor hiring only thebest
performersin theworld.
Simplybeinghiredtoperformwith CirqueduSoleilis insufficienttodemonstratethatthepetitioner
performedin a leadingor critical role. providedno information,for example,that
distinguishedthepetitionerfrom theotherperformerswith Cirquedu Soleil,soasto demonstrate
thatthepetitioner'sroleisleadingor critical. Moreover, claimed:
[The petitioner]andhis partnercreatedthe HandBalancingact that is a major
featureof Koozatoday. It shouldbenotedthatif thisactwereto beplacedinto an
internationalSportsAcrobaticscompetitiontoday,it would easilybe expectedto
medal.Andthisis anactperformedin frontof alive audienceonadailybasis.
While highlypraisesthepetitioner'sHandBalancingact,heassumesthatthepetitioner
wouldmedalin a fictionalinternationalcompetitionat somepointin thefuture. Regardless,
failedto explainhowthepetitioner'sperformancecanbeconsideredaleadingor criticalrole
to Cirquedu Soleil as a whole. Again,thereis no evidencethat distinguishesthe petitioner's
performancesor actsfromtheotherperformersthatwouldbedemonstrativeof aleadingor critical
role. alsoclaimed:
It is myopinionthat[thepetitioner's]positionwith CirqueduSoleil,thelevelof his
performance,the uniquenatureof his performanceskills andhis culturalvalueis
ratherconclusiveindicationsthat while he left competitivesportsacrobatics,he
remainsoneof thebestin thisdisciplinetothisday.
Merelyhavingtalentor auniqueskill setis notreflectiveof performingin aleadingor criticalrole.
Rather,the recordmustbe supportedby evidencethat thepetitionerhasalreadyusedthoseunique
skills to perform in a leading or critical role. Furthermore,assumingthe petitioner's skills are
unique,theclassificationsoughtwasnotdesignedmerelyto alleviateskill shortagesin agivenfield.
In fact,thatissueproperlyfallsunderthejurisdictionof theDepartmentof Laborthroughthealien
employment labor certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of
Transportation,22I&N Dec.215,221(Comm'r 1998).
While generallydescribedthe petitioneras "extraordinary,"there is insufficient
evidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner'srole with Cirque du Soleil is leadingor critical.
Similarly,asdiscussedpreviously,thepetitionersubmitteda letterfrom whogenerally
statedthatthepetitioneris anintegralpartof Cirquedu Soleiland"playsa substantialrolein the
production." However, providedno furtherinformationto reflectthatthepetitioner's
roleis leadingor critical. Thisregulatorycriterionnot onlyrequiresthepetitionerto performin a
rolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation,theregulatorycriterion
Page10
alsorequirestheroleto beleadingor critical. TheAAO is notpersuadedby vague,solicitedletters
thatsimplyrepeattheregulatorylanguagebutdonotexplainhowthepetitioner'sroleis leadingor
critical. Merelyrepeatingthelanguageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnotsatisfythepetitioner's
burdenof proof.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v.Sava,724F.Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd,905
F.2d41(2d.Cir.1990);AvyrAssociates,Inc.v.Meissner,1997WL 188942at*5 (S.D.N.Y.).
Further,USCISmay, in its discretion,useas advisoryopinion statementssubmittedas expert
testimony.SeeMatterof CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r 1988).However,
USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthefmal determinationregardinganalien'seligibility
for the benefitsought. Id. The submissionof lettersof supportfrom the petitioner'spersonal
contactsis notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoseletters
asto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795-796;seealsoMatterof V-K-,24
I&N Dec. at 500,n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus,the contentof the writers' statementsandhow they
becameawareof thepetitioner'sreputationareimportantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenby
independentexperts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof less
weightthanpreexisting,independentevidence.
Evenif thepetitionerdemonstratedthathisrolewith CirqueduSoleilis leadingor critical,whichhe
clearlydid not,theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requiresthe
petitionerto performin a leadingor criticalrolefor morethanoneorganizationor establishment.
There is no evidenceof the petitionerperformingin a role for any other organizationor
establishmentthathasadistinguishedreputation,letalonealeadingor criticalrole.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
C. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. P-1NONIMMIGRANTADMISSION
Since the filing of the petition, the petitioner was admitted to the United Statesas a P-1
nonimmigrant,a visaclassificationthatrequiresthealiento performasanentertainerasanintegral
and essentialpart of the performanceof an entertainmentgroup that has beenrecognized
internationallyasbeingoutstandingin thedisciplinefor a sustainedandsubstantialperiodof time
andthealienseeksto entertheUnitedStates"temporarilyandsolelyfor thepurposeof performing
assuchaperformeror entertaineror asanintegralandessentialpartof aperformance."Seesection
214(c)(4)(B)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ ll84(c)(4)(B). WhileUSCIShasapprovedat leastoneP-1
nonimmigrantvisapetitionfiled onbehalfof thebeneficiary,theprior approvaldoesnotpreclude
USCISfromdenyinganimmigrantvisapetitionbasedonadifferent,if similarlyphrased,standard.
It mustbe notedthat many I-140 immigrantpetitionsare deniedafter USCISapprovesprior
nonimmigrantpetitions.See,e.g Q Data Consulting.Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.
2003);IKEAUSv.USDept.ofJustice,48F.Supp.2d22(D.D.C.1999);FedinBrothersCo.Ltd.v.
Sava,724 F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y. 1989). BecauseUSCISspendslesstime reviewingI-129
Page11
nonimmigrantpetitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, somenonimmigrantpetitions are simply
approvedin error.QDataConsulting,Inc.v.INS,293F. Supp.2dat29-30;seealsoTexasA&M
Univ.v. Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx.556,2004WL 1240482(5thCir. 2004)(findingthatprior
approvalsdo not precludeUSCISfrom denyingan extensionof the original visa basedon a
reassessmentofpetitioner'squalifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitionswhereeligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologyInternational, 19I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurdto
suggestthatUSCISor anyagencymusttreatacknowledgederrorsasbindingprecedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd.v.Montgomerv,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
TheAAO's authorityovertheservicecentersis comparableto therelationshipbetweena courtof
appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif aservicecenterdirectorhasapprovedanonimmigrantpetition
onbehalfof thealien,theAAO wouldnotbeboundto followthecontradictorydecisionof aservice
center. LouisianaPhilharmonic Orchestrav. INS, 2000 WL 282785(E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d
1139(5thCir. 2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51(2001).
An applicationor petitionthatfailsto complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnotidentifyall of thegroundsfor denialin the
initial decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d at 1043,affd, 345
F.3dat 683;seealsoSeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO
conductsappellatereviewonadenovobasis).
IV. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidenceunder at least three evidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of the evidencein the contextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof thatsmallpercentage
who haverisento the verytop of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alienhassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield
of expertise."8C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3);seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.Whilethe
AAO concludesthattheevidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageattheverytop of thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin afinalmeritsdetermination)Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthe
3TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ,381F.3dat 145. In any
futureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictionto conducta final meritsdeterminationastheoffice thatmadethe
lastdecisionin this matter. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of theAct; section204(b)of theAct;
Page12
petitionerhasfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
at 1122.
Thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of
theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappealwill
bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8C.F.R.§2.1(2003);8C.F.R.§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003);
Matterof Aurelio, 191&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacyINS, nowUSCIS,is thesoleauthority
with thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).