dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

DATE DEC 0 5 2012 Ollice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Ueneficiary: 
{l.S. Depal·llllcl1.l (If lIumclaml Security' 
U.S. ('iti7cns!1ip (lnt! IllIrnj~ratj(ln Services 
Administrative l\prea1s (Hrice (AM)) 
20 Massachusetts Avl,'" N.W., MS 2090 
Wdshinglun, DC 2U529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Pdition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahilily Pursuant 10 Sectioll 
203(h)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, H U.S.c. ~ 1153(h)( 1 )(A) 
ON I3EHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SEI.F-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Auministrative Appeals Ollice in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have heen rdurned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he madc to thal uffice. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its uecision, or you haw additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to n:open in 
accordance with the instructions on Fllfm 1-24013, Notice of Appeal or Motion. with a fcc of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at H C.F.R. § 1113.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. PIcase he aware that H C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
J() days of the decision that the motion secks to reCllnsiuer ()f reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goy 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director. Texas Service Center. denied the employment-based immigrant vISa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks c1assitieation as an "alien of extraordinary ability," in athletics pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievcments. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 CER. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or intcrnational acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority dale established by the petition filing date is July 28, 20ll. On October IY, 
2011, the director served the petitioner with a request t(lr evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on March 2Y, 2012. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a statement with no new documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
the !\!\O upholds the direetor's ultimate detennination that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states. in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 havc been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work III the area of 
extraordinary ability. and 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognizcd that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 IO 1st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990): Sf, Fed. Reg. 60t;97, 60t;lJ8-99 (Nov. 29.1991). The term '"extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in lhal small percentage who have risen to the very lOp of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
1) CF.R. * 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major. international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 1) CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 20 I 0, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) rcviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USClS, 5% F.3d 1 I 15 (9th Cir. 20 lO). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion] With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a sLlbscquent .. tinalmerits detennination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AACfs evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, lhc court stated lhat ·'the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
tililed to submit sufticient c\idenee, ··the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three typcs of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
H CF.R. * 204.5(h)(3 ». 
Thus, Kazariall sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under al least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petilioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
I Specifically, the court stated thaI the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements heyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and R C.F.R. 
~ 2045(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previously approved 0- I Nonimmigrant Petition 
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval docs not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that 
many 1-140 immigrant petitions arc denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, 
e.g., Q Data CO/lsultin/i, Illc v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 20(3); IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
.lust ice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedill Brothers Co. Ud. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 198')). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data COIlSlIltill/i, 
fllc v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Ulliv. I'. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 
WL 12404S2 (5th Cir. 20(4) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS Ii'Dm denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner'S quali fications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See. e.g, Maller of 
Church Sciei1lology flltern(lliOlllll, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1(88). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Ell/ig 
Ltd. v. MOlltWJmerv, ~25 F.2d IOtl4, 1090 (6th Cir. 1(87), ccrt. denied, 485 U.S. IOOtl (J (88). 
Furthermore, the AAC),s authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contracJictory decision 
of a service center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as to 
a visa applicant where that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara 
Fashion, fnc. v. Holder, 1 I e1V. tl89 PAE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2(12); Royal Siam v. 
Cherto!t; 484 F.3d 13'), 14S (1st Cir.20(7); Tapis In!'! v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 177 (D.Mass.20()O)) 
(Dkt.IO); Louisialla I'hil/umnollic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F.Supp.2d tlOO, ~()3 (E.D.L~\.199'1). aft'd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 20(1I). cert. dmied, 122 S.C!. 51 (200!). 
B. One-time Achievement 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for the petitioner's claim of a one-time c,chievement and 
found that the petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the 
director's lindings or olTer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda I'. u.s. Att\· Gell., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir. 2(05): IlristlJv v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-273 1201 I, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) (the court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under claim of a one-time achievement. 
Page 5 
C. Evidentiary Criteri} 
DocumenlUtion or the "lien's receipt or lesser nationally or illterllaliollul/y recognized prizes or 
u wards j(Jr <,xcellcnce illlhe/ield o(L'Ildea\'{)r. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at K C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien is the 
recipient of the prizes or thc awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards arc nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an cvent or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several website printouts reflecting the finishing position for himself and his 
dance partner, and two ccrtificates. The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of 
this criterion. The AAO departs hom the director's favorable eligibility determination related to this 
criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
The petitioner hliled to provide evidence to demonstrate that any of the prizes or awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. National and international recognition results, 
not from the individual who signed the prize or the award, but through the awareness of the accolade in 
the eyes of the fidd nationally or internationally. This can occur through several means; for example, 
through media coverage. A national or international level competition may issue lesser awards that 
merely receive local or regional recognition, which do not meet the plain language rcquiremems of this 
criterion. 
The two certificates submitted relate to the to the World Professional Rising 
Star International Latin Competition from Dance Championships (USDC), and 
winning the Championship from the British Dance Council. The 
certificate from the USDC does not constitute a prize or an award as contemplated by the regulation at 
H C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i). The cet1ilicate states: "This eet1ifieate is awardcd in recognition of your 
achievement as II finalist of the _ Unitcd States Open to the World Professional Rising Star 
International Latin Competition:' (Emphasis added). This cct1iticate fails to identify the petitioner's 
final position within the competition. Additionally, a letter from of the USDC also 
failed to identify the petitioner's overall position in the , the record lacks 
evidence that this ccrtificate is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award t()f excellence in 
the petitioner's field. 
The certificate related to the .Suffolk Open Latin Amateur Championship demonstrates that the 
petitioner won the competition; however, he failed to provide evidence that this is a nationally or 
- The petitioner dot:s not claim to meet ()r suhmit evidence relating to the regulatory l'ategorics of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the petitioner's field. As a result, this award 
fails to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
As the petitioner failed to establish that his prizes or awards arc nationally or internationally recognized 
in the field, he has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion. Therefore, the AAO 
withdraws the director's tllvorahlc determination related to this criterion. 
Documentation ot the alien's memhership in associations in the /ie/djiJr which classijicotion is 
sOllght, whiciz re(/Ilire outstanding acizievements of their memhers, n\"jlldged bv recognized nutlmwl 
or illtematiollal e.\perts ill their disciplines or fields. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one association in his field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (I) that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements (in the plural) of prospective members to determine if the 
achievements are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding determination as a 
condition of eligibility for prospective membership. It is insufficient for the association itself to 
determine if the achievements were outstanding, unless nationally or internationally recognized experts 
in the petitioner's field, who represent the association, render this determination. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these clemcnts to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirement~; of this criterion. On appeal, 
the petitioner only contests the director's determination relating to his membership in the United 
Kingdom Alliance (UKA). 
The petitioner estahlished his memhership in the UKA through a certificate as a licentiate in the 
association and through his membership card. The licentiate eeltificate celtifies only the petitioner's 
"abilitv and knowledge as a teacher of dancing." The petitioner also provided a letter from _ 
_ , Chief' UKA. The petitioner's appellate statement asserts that each 
member is . taking an exanl and that not everyone who takes the exam 
will pass. Irms this inf()rmation. the letter does not verit~, the petitioner's 
claim petitioner'sl membership based on [hisJ outstanding 
achievements." The does not mention outstanding achievements as the 
petitioner claimed. The AAO will not presume that passing a qualifying exam is an outstanding 
achievement in the competitive field of dancesport rather than simply certification as a qual ified teacher 
and eligibility to compete. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the UKA is an association 
that has satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion. Additionally, the UKA is but a 
single association while the plain language of the regulation at i\ C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires 
evidence of membership in "associations" in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive documentation. See section 203(b)( I )(A)(i) of the Act. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Page 7 
Puhlished m(l{crial aholll tite alien in projc'ssional or major trade l)[{hlicali{)1l.\ or otizer major 
JIledia. relating /() the aliell's \lOrk ill the fid"fiJr \\'hich classificatioll is sougizt. Such ('vidence 
shall include the tirle. date. allil awhor Of the material, and all)' lleCe'iStlr)' trall.liwion. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal. the petitioner does not contest the director's lindings for this 
criterion or oller additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda 4()1 F.3d at 1221\ n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 47111\1\5, at "9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence oj the alien's participation. either individually or on (/pullel. as a judge of the work oj 
others ill the same or all allicdfield o/,specificalioll filr which classificatiol1 is sought. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the pClitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal. the petitioner docs not contcst the director's findings lor this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers Ihis issue to be 
abandoned. Sel'lIil'eda 4111 F.3d at 122~ n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 47111\1\5, at "9. Accordingly, the 
petilioner has not submitted qualifying cvidence under this criterion. 
Evidencc II/ Ihe alien's ori!;illal scientific, scholarl.'·, arlil'tic, athletic. or IJIlsil7esl'·re/ated 
cOlllrihWiol11' oj' lIIajor sigl7i/icallCt' in thetield. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field, These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific. scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is thai the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organi/<ltion. The phrase "major significance" is !lot superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silvermall I'. Fastrich Mliitiple Investor Fllnd, 1..1'., 51 F. 3d 21), 31 (3cd Cir. 1995) 
quoted il1 Al'WU I'. Putter, 343 F,3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 20m). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has signiticantly impacted the ficlel. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner provided several letters from experts in his field. The director determined that the 
petilioner failed to meel the requirements of this criterion. 
Wilhin the initial filing statement. the petitioner's fomler counsel assel1ed the petitioner's original 
contributions to his field are exhibited through letters from industry experts, Counsel explained the 
petitioner's claim of conlributions in his field by asserting thai his "unique approach to ballroom 
dancing and coaching is widely recognized and touted among other dance experts and sels him apart 
Page ,,,\ 
trom other experts in the lield." After requesting additional evidence under this criterion and 
considering the additional letters the petitioner provided in response to that request, the director 
determined that all of the petitioller's cvidencc failed to demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion. 
Within the appellate statement the petitioner expresses his dissatistilction with his ti)J'Jl1er atton1ey's 
performance representing his eligibility under this criterion. 
The petitioner now asserts that his contribution of major significance in his field consists of "bringing 
standardization to American dancesport techniques which will lead to objective jUdging standards on 
par with thc rest of the world, and thereby bringing legitimacy and respect for USA dancesport 
competitions." The petitioner also describes the dancesport industry as consisting of two entities; one in 
the Unites States and another in Europe, The petitioner asserts that the European entity bases its 
judging on written dance techniques, while the U.S. entity lacks such wrilten standards and bases its 
determinations on the subjectivity of the judges. He also explains that it is this lack of a written 
technique that results in the competitions from the U.S, entity not being recognized by those in Europe. 
__ claims to he a. four-time U,S, National Champion in Ballroor~t and to have 
tounded a dance studIO. Wlthll1 hIS letter, _ ll1dlcatcd that he and_ "have started 
writing our own American-standard pedagogue hook:' and that the petitioner's "enthusiasm, ideas, and 
technical training were the linal ingredients we needed to start writing" the standarclized technique book 
that will allegedly bring respect lilr the American style of dancing to entities outside of the United 
States, _ references this book of standardized techniques in the future tense as this hook has 
yet to be completed or to have had any impact within the petitioner's lield. _does not identify 
how the petitioner has already made a significant impact in his field, which is required by this 
regulatory criterion, 
is the Organizer of the Ohio Star Ball, a ing dance competition. 
t he is working with the petitioner. "to create the lirst in-depth technical 
dance manual for American-style dance." While claims the men are making progress on 
the manual, he did not indicate that the manual was eomplcte, nor that it has already impacted the 
petitioner's tield, which is required b: the regulation. A petitioner must establish the elements for the 
approval of the petition at the time of filing, See 8 CF.R. Q* 103.2(h)(I), (l2). A petition may not be 
approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, hut expects to become eligible at a 
subsequent time. See Maller oIKlllighak, 141&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The evidence 
relating to the technique book and manual does not establish that, as of the priority date, the petitioner 
had contributed to his field in a significant manner as required hy the regulation. 
The remaining klters speak to the petitioller's mastery of both th~ American and the international style, 
in addition to his achi~vements and ability as a dancer and as an instructor. These letters failed to 
identity contributions in the petitioner's tield that are original, but more importantly the contributions in 
these letters arc not th~ same contributions in the petitioner's lield that he ass':rts on appeal. 
Achievements and ability in one's lield are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major 
significance in the dancesport field. The reference letters do not provide specific examples of how the 
Page l) 
petIttoner's work has signiticantly impacted the tield at large or otherwise constitules original 
contributions of major significance, 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Maller o(S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 132K, rB2 (BIA 20(0) (citing 
Maller oFM-D-, 2 I I&N Dec. IIKO (BIA 1'1'18); Maller ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1'198); Matter 
of!)''ss, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 19K9); see also Malter oj'Acosta, 1'1 I&N Dec. 211. 21K (BIA 19K5»). 
The Board clarified, howcver: "\Ve not only encourage, but require the introduction of cOlToborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Malter oj'S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332, If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater nced for thc petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofT-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 19lJK). 
Solicited lelters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenccd the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USc/S, 51-:0 F.3d 
103(), 1036 (9'h Cir. 20(9) o(rd in part 596 F.3d I I IS (9th Cir. 20JO). In 20J(), the Kazariall court 
reiterated that the AA(Ys conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's1 
contributions in the lield" v\as insunicient was "eonsistent with the relevant rcgulatmy language." 596 
F.:ld at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight ancl have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot limn 
the cornerstone of a sllccessful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, ill its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony, See Maller of Caron Illtemational, 
1'1 I&N Dec. 791. 7lJS (Comm'r 1988). However. llSCIS is ultimately responsible I"r making the linal 
detetmination regarding an alien's eligibility till' the benetit sought. Id. The submission of letters trom 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility: USeIS may evaluate the 
content of thl'se leiters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see "Iso Matter 
oj V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. SOO, 11.2 (BIA 200tl) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "Illct" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue). Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence 
of original contributions of major significance. 
Furthermore, on appeal the petitioner only claims the manual related to American-style dance as his 
contribution in his field. The plain 1,lIlgu,tge of the regubtion at Il c.r.R. ~ :'O·t.5(h)(J)(v) requires 
evidence of "contributions" in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation, See scction 203(b)( I )(A lei) of the Act. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satislies this criterion's 
relj uirements. 
Evidence oltile display oflhe alien's \1'Ork in Ihefield at artistic exhihitiol1s or shmrcascs. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary clements the petitioner llIust satisfy. The plain language 
requirements of this criterion requires that the work in the field is directly attributable to the alien, 
Page I () 
Generally, the regulation at II C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts. This interpretation is 
longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court in Negro-PIll/npe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-1I20-
ECR-RJJ at "7 (D. Nev. Sept. ~, 200~) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing 
artist do not fall under tl C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii»). The alien's work also mllst have been displayed at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases (in the plural). While neither the regulation nor existing precedent 
speak to what constitutes an exhibition or a showcase, Merriam-Webster's online dictIonary delines 
exhibition as. "a public showing (as of works of art).'" Merriam-Wcbster's online dictionary also 
delines showcase as. "a setting. occasion. or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in 
an attractive or lavorable aspect.'..) Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be 
referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Heddm, 149 U.S. 304, 306 
(I~93). Therefore. it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the display of his work in the field 
claimed under this criterion occurred at artistic exhihitions or at artistic showcases. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The 11L'titioncr's field is clancl'sport. Within the initial filing q:ltemenl. former counsel stated: 
"J)aneespOI1 is on its way to become pari of the Olympics, as the federation that governs dancesport has 
been qualified by the International Olympic Committee'" Thus. the petitioner choreographed and 
directed an athktic display. rather than an artistic display. As the petitioner has not created tangible 
pieces of art that were on display at artistic exhibitions or showcases, he h:lS not submitted qualifying 
evidencc that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at ~ C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vii). 
El'idence that Ihe "lim has perjiJrmed in a leading or crilical role Fir organizaliollS or 
eslahlishmmls Ihm have a dislingllisiJed replllation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitionel failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner docs not contest the director's tindings lelr this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepalveda 401 F.3d at 122t> n.2; Hrislov, 2011 WL 471ltlt>5, at "'9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
t.'vidence thill Ihe alien has cO/1l/1landed a high salary or other significantly high remllneration jbr 
sen 'ices, in relation to oIllI'rs in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his digibility. On appeal. the petitioner docs not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 122tl n.2; Hris/ov, 2011 WL 471 1t>tl5, at *9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
-' See U!tp:,i, \\'~Y_~\: .. _II1~"r!:iL!1D--=-~~Jtili:'J_,L:I)l_nl(i.i_~_li_~!nQ!}:L~~.lihitiQD, accessed ()n Nt)vcmher 1, 2012, a C()py ()f which is 
incorporated into the recoru oj" proceeding. 
-.\ ,)'tY hi tP.> :WW\\ .JllLTri:llll--\\cb..,tcLC( Hll,' diet ionary/"Jl( l\vcasc, accessed on Nt lVcmhcr I, 20 I L a copy 1)1' which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page II 
L'videllce of commercial Sllccesses ill lill' perjiJrmilJfi arts, as shoWIl hI' box oJ/ice receipts or record, 
ca.',,'wtte, cornpact disk, or pic/eo ,"ia/e,,,,'. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility, On appeal. the petitioner does not contest the director's lindings lor this 
criterion or olTer additional arguments, The AAO, therefore. considers this issue to be 
abandonecLSel'lllvcd" 41l[ F.3cJ at 122k n.2; Hrislov, 2011 WL 47118t\5, at *9, Accordingly. the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion, 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence, 
ilL CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazariall opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evi(kncc in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"Ievel of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very wp of thelirl licld of endeanJr" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 CF.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3): see a/so Kazariall, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained natiorwl or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination,' Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has tailed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. ld, at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 2()3( b)( I )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved, 
The burden of proof in visa pctition proceedings remains entirel y with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act. k U.S,C ~ 1361: Mawr of'Soriallo, 19 I&N Dec. 7114, 7(,6 (BIA 198k) (citing Maller of 
, The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of bet and law, See So/tal/{' v. DO). 31'; 1 F3d 143. 145 (3d 
Cir. 21l(4), In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdictiDn to mnciuct a final merits determination 
as the Dflice that made the last dccision in this maller. K C.F,R, § 103,5(a)(I)(ii), See a/so section 103(a)(I) of 
the Act: section 204(h) "I thc Act: DHS Delegation Numher 0150.1 (effective March I, 20m); 8 CF.R. § 2,1 
(20m): K CFR, ~ 103, l(f)(3)(iii) (20m): Maller o{Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec, 458. 460 (B1A 19K7) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the ,ole authmitv with the .iurisdiction to decide visa petitiol1s), 
Page 12 
Brtll1liJ;llIl, II I&N Dec. 4<)3 (B1A 1(6)). Here. the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly. the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.