dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballet

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
n 
FILE: I LIN 05 072 50756 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 ? 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Ths is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
.dw~'7>@d~7 c4 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed with a 
finding of fiaud and material misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S .C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. Part 5 of the Form 1-140 petition lists the petitioner's occupation as a ballet dancer and teacher. 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. 
On January 23, 2007, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he submitted falsified material in support of 
his petition. The notice specifically observed that the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifying 
under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." 
Regarding the fraudulent document and its materiality to these proceedings, the AA07s notice stated: 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) calls for documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. In support of your 
petition, you submitted a Diploma dated "1 8 August 1995" declaring you as a "fmalist" at the "Third 
International Ballet Competition 'Maya."' You also submitted a resume detailing your education, 
experience, and accomplishments. 
 Under the heading "Awards," your resume states: 
 "Third 
International Ballet Competition 'Maya.' Finalist. Diploma. St. Petersburg, Russia 1995." In 
response to the director's request for evidence, however, you submitted a document printed from the 
"International Ballet Competition 'Maya"' internet website entitled "Judging" which reflects that this 
competition occurred in 1998, not in "1 995" as indicated on your aforementioned Diploma and 
resume.' Based on this discrepancy regarding the date of your Diploma and using the internet address 
from the website material you submitted, the AAO accessed further material at the International 
Ballet Competition "Maya" internet website.' 
This material indicates that the First International Ballet Competition "Maya" took place in August 
1994, the Second International Ballet Competition "Maya" took place in December 1996, and the 
Thrd International Ballet Competition "Maya" took place in August 1 998, not in August 1995 as 
indicated on the Diploma and resume that you submitted to CIS. A document printed from the 
competition's internet website entitled "Schedule" reflects that the "Third (final) round" of the Third 
International Ballet Competition "Maya" took place on August 21, 1998 and that the "closing 
ceremony" in which prizes were awarded took place on "August 22."3 As stated previously, the 
Diploma naming you as a finalist at the Thrd International Ballet Competition "Maya" is dated "18 
I 
 According to your Form 1-485, Application for Permanent Residence, your "Date of Last Arrival" in the United States 
was November 25, 1997. 
2 
See htt~:Nma_ya.wplus.netiballet konk eng.htm, accessed on January 9,2007 (attached to this notice). 
See http:~lmaya.wplus.netmallet schedule eno.htm, accessed on January 9, 2007 (attached to this notice). 
Page 3 
August 1995," more than three years before this competition occurred and its awards were presented. 
You have not resolved this significant discrepancy regarding the date of your award certificate. 
By submitting the Diploma dated "1 8 August 1995" from the "Thrd International Ballet Competition 
'Maya,"' it appears that you have attempted to obtain a visa by fraud and willful misrepresentation of 
a material fact. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
If you choose to contest the AAO's finding, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancy described above. If you do not 
submit such evidence within the allotted twelve-week period, the AAO will dismiss your appeal. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the evidence described above, you appear to have sought 
to procure a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material 
fact. Unless you are able to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and 
persuasively, our above finding, the AAO will dismiss your appeal and enter a formal finding of fraud 
into the record. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5), the petitioner was requested to submit the original 
version of his August 18, 1995 diploma from the Third International Ballet Competition "Maya." The 
petitioner was also requested to submit the originals of his diplomas from the "Competition of Ballet Mastery 
'Debut - 1991 "' and the "First all Russian Competition of A. Ya. Vaganova Students of Advanced Classes of 
Choreographic Academies" (1 988). In accordance with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(5) and (1 6)(i), 
the petitioner was afforded 12 weeks in whch to respond to the AAO's notice. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an April 6,2007 letter stating: 
I am writing this letter to response [sic] to your letter of January 23, 2007. According to your letter I 
was granted 12 weeks to submit the originals of all the requested documents. When I came to US in 
1997 I did not plan to stay for such a long time and I left all my professional papers at home. When I 
decided to file for 1-485 I started gathering all my documents. I could not get the originals from 
Ukraine but I contacted A&I Agency in Brooklyn, NY to help me find my documents in former 
Soviet Union. I paid them $2500 and after a few months they faxed me copies of all my documents 
from Russia. After your letter I tried to contact this Agency to help me get my originals but learned 
that A&I do [sic] not exist anymore. I went to 603 Brighton Beach Ave. second floor Brooklyn NY 
and find out that them [sic] out of business for years. 
Page 4 
Unfortunately all the requested originals are in Russia and Ukraine. After living in US for almost 10 
years (since 1997) most of my contacts in Russia been lost. I would have to go there personally to try 
and get the document requested by USCIS. 
Accordingly, I hereby asking you to grant me additional 12 weeks to properly respond to your letter 
of intent to deny dated January 23,2007. 
Rather than submitting the requested originals within the time period specified in the AAO's January 23, 2007 
notice, the petitioner instead requests additional time to obtain these documents. Regarding the petitioner's 
failure to submit the requested originals within the allotted 12 week period, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2(b)(5) provides: "If the requested original, other than one issued by the Service, is not submitted 
withn 12 weeks, the petition or application shall be denied or revoked." Accordingly, this petition cannot be 
approved. 
Regarding the petitioner's request for additional time to respond, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8) 
provides that a "petitioner shall be given 12 weeks to respond to a request for evidence. Additional time may 
not be granted." [Emphasis added] 
The petitioner's April 6,2007 letter further states: 
I have always been a law abiding and moral person and intent to be all my life. I have never been 
arrested, charged, indicted or convicted of any crime in the United States or anywhere else in the 
world. I have never given false information to the police or immigration authority to obtain a benefit 
in the United States or anywhere else in the world. 
While the petitioner asserts that he has "never given false information" to an "immigration authority," his 
letter fails to specifically address the AA07s finding that the August 18, 1995 diploma from the Third 
International Ballet Competition "Maya" was fraudulent. As stated previously, documentation printed from 
the competition's internet website reflects that the "Third (final) round" of the Third International Ballet 
Competition "Maya" took place on August 21, 1998 and that the "closing ceremony" in which prizes were 
awarded took place on "August 22, 1998," not in 1995 as indicated on the diploma and resume submitted by 
the petitioner. The petitioner's response includes no independent and objective evidence to overcome the 
AA07s finding that the August 1 8, 1 995 diploma submitted by him was a falsification. 
Section 21 2(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, 
seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into 
the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
Page 5 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which "tends to shut 
off a line of inquiry whch is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper 
determination that he be excluded." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the evidence described above, the petitioner has sought to procure 
a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willhl misrepresentation of a material fact. Because the 
petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our 
finding that he submitted a falsified document in support of the petition, we affirm our finding of fraud. This 
finding of fraud shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner ' s failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the 
remaining documentation. As stated above, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. The remaining documentation and the director's bases of denial will be 
discussed below. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner "has met his burden of proof to qualify under Section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Lmrmgration and Nationality Act, as amended. . . . Petitioner has demonstrated that he is an artist of 
extraordinary training and ability whose achevements have been recognized both as a dancer and a teacher." 
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 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The 
Page 6 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in hs or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 30, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a ballet dancer and teacher. As required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner must demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since November 1997. 
Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date 
(more than seven years), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States 
during that time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C .F.R. 5 204.5 (h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a "Diploma of Third Grade . . . For Mastery of Execution" at the 1" All-Russian 
Competition of Students of Advanced Classes of A. Ya. Yaganova Choreographic Academies (1 98 8). 
The petitioner also submitted a "Diploma . . . For Achievements in the Competition of Ballet Mastery 'Debut - 
1 99 1 . ' The record includes a letter of support &om Viktor Lytvynov, Choreographer of the National Opera of 
Ukraine, stating: 
At the time of hs work at the National Opera and Ballet Theatre of Ukraine [the petitioner] has competed 
against numerous talented and  red dancers of the time and received the Diploma for Achievements in 
the Competition of Ballet Mastery "DEBUT 1991 ." This competition took part in Kiev in 1991; 
President of the Jury was well-known Yuri Grigorovich. 
We find that "Debut - 1991" and the "Students of Advanced Classes of A. Ya. Yaganova Choreographic 
Academies" ballet "mastery" competitions offer no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and 
experienced ballet professionals. We note that the petitioner was less than twenty years old at the time of 
these competitions. There is no evidence that the petitioner faced competition from throughout his entire 
Page 7 
field, rather than his approximate age group within that field. Receipt of an award in a competition that 
excludes established professionals fiom consideration is not an indication that the petitioner has reached the 
"very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). Further, the record includes no supporting 
evidence indicating the number of other diploma recipients, the level of recognition associated with these 
competitions, the geographic area from which the individuals who participated in the competitions were 
drawn from, the specific criteria for granting the diplomas, the level of expertise of those considered, and the 
number of individuals eligible to compete. 
The petitioner also submitted a Diploma for "Laureate of First Level" from the "Fourth International Ballet 
Competition 'Vaganova Prix"' held in "St. Petersburg, Russia" from June 19 - 26, 1998.~ According to the 
petitioner's Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, however, hs "Date of 
Last Arrival" in the United States was November 25, 1997. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In ths instance, there is no independent and objective evidence to 
establish that the petitioner was present for ths competition in St. Petersburg, Russia in June 1998 rather than 
in the United States during that time.5 
As stated previously, the petitioner submitted a Diploma issued on August 18, 1995 stating that he was a "Finalist 
of the Thd International Ballet Competition 'Maya."' On January 23, 2007, in accordance with the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice advising the petitioner that this document was found to 
be fraudulent. The petitioner, however, failed to submit independent and objective evidence to overcome the 
AAO ' s finding. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(S), the AAO also requested the petitioner to submit the 
originals of the preceding diplomas. The petitioner's failure to comply with the AAO's request constitutes 
grounds for denial of the petition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejeld for which classzJication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
The record does not include the original version of this document. 
5 
 The record reflects that the petitioner was working for Ballet Theatre of Annapolis in Maryland at that time. For 
example, a brochure for "The School of the Ballet Theatre of Annapolis" lists the petitioner among the "faculty" for the 
school's summer session running from June 22, 1998 to August 21, 1998. 
Page 8 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a June 13, 2005 letter confirming 
his membership in the American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA). The record, however, does not include 
the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for this organization. There is no evidence 
showing that admission to membership in the AGMA required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner 
was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the$eld for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level fkom a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New 
York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.6 
The petitioner submitted several articles about local productions in which he participated, but these articles 
only mention his name in passing. For example, as noted in the director's decision, the articles published in 
the Prince William Extra, a local section distributed with The Washington Post, and The Washington Post 
"Style" section "are mostly about dance companies or specific productions, in which the petitioner is 
mentioned minimally, if at all." An article in Dance Magazine, entitled "Akra Ballet Debut Off in Power 
Outage," appears in the April 1999 issue and consists of two paragraphs. This article, which misspells the 
petitioner's last name and merely refers to him as one of sixteen guest performers, is not primarily about the 
petitioner. The plain language of this criterion, however, requires the submission of "published materials 
about the alien." If the petitioner is not the primary subject of the material, then it fails to demonstrate his 
individual acclaim at the national or international level. A September 2004 article appearing in the Peninsula 
Clarion is primarily about the petitioner, but this newspaper is a local publication. The petitioner submitted 
additional articles appearing in local publications such as The Capital of Annapolis, Maryland, the 
Chattanooga Times Free Press, The Indianapolis Star, and the Manassas Journal Messenger. The record, 
however, includes no evidence that these publications have substantial national circulation to such an extent 
that they could be considered major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets thls criterion. 
6 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Prince William County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 9 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of spec$cation for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. For example, serving as a judge for a national competition involving professional dancers is of far 
greater probative value than serving as a judge for a regional competition involving amateurs or children. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a June 8, 2005 letter from Larissa 
Saveliev, Artistic Director, Youth America Grand Prix, stating: 
Youth America Grand Prix (YAGP) is the only student ballet competition in America which awards 
scholarships to the leading dance schools in the U.S. and abroad. The competition is held annually in 
New York City and is open to dance students of all nationalities 9 - 19 years old. 
Launched in the year 2000 by Gennadi Saveliev and myself, . . . YAGP was created to provide . . . 
educational and professional opportunities for young student dancers, acting as a stepping stone to a 
professional dance career. 
[The petitioner] has been involved with YAGP as a guest teacher and judge at several of the YAGP 
semi-finals across the United States. He presented the YAGP participants with a rare opportunity of 
master classes. 
The letter from Larissa Saveliev fails to identify the specific dates when the petitioner participated as a semi- 
final judge. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner served as a judge at the YAGP competition finals in 
New York City. Further, the record includes no evidence showing the names of the dancers evaluated by the 
petitioner, their level of expertise, and the paperwork documenting his assessments. The plain language of 
this criterion, however, requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." 
Primary evidence of the petitioner' s participation would consist of contemporaneous paperwork documenting 
the evaluations performed by him rather than a letter of support issued long after the events occurred. In this 
instance, the petitioner has not complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) regarding the 
submission of secondary evidence. Specifically, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the paperwork 
relating to the evaluations he performed is unavailable or does not exist. The absence of contemporaneous 
evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge is a significant omission from the record. The benefit 
sought in the present matter, however, is not the type for which documentation is typically unavailable and the 
statute specifically requires "extensive documentation" to establish eligibility. See section 203@)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act. The regulations governing the present immigrant visa determination have no requirement mandating that 
CIS specifically accept the credibility of personal testimony, even if not corroborated. The commentary for the 
Page 10 
proposed regulations implementing this statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be 
set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703,30704 (July 5, 1991). 
Finally, we do not find that evaluating amateur student ballet dancers at the regonal semi-finals is indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence indicative of national or international acclaim, 
such as documentation showing that the petitioner evaluated experienced professionals in his field at the 
national or international level, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support from his professional acquaintances, but their letters fail to 
specify an artistic contribution of major significance in the field of ballet attributable to the petitioner. In 
order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must show not only that his contribution was original in the field of 
ballet, but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 
and, thus, that it has some meaning. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner is among 
the most influential ballet dancers or teachers currently active in the field or that the field has somehow 
changed as a result of his work. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field at the national or international 
level, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's conclusions that no evidence was submitted for ths 
criterion and that the petitioner's "field of endeavor is not in the visual arts." We concur with the director's 
findings. The plain language of this criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors 
and painters) rather than the petitioner's occupation. In the performing arts, national or international acclaim 
is generally not established by the mere act of appearing in public, but rather by attracting a substantial 
national or international audience. The record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has attracted 
such a following. The regulations establish separate criteria, especially for those whose work is in the 
performing arts. The petitioner's ballet performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in 
the performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(x). Thus, the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In addressing the evidence relating to this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
[Tlhe record contains numerous programs from various dance companies that the petitioner has 
performed with, including the Ballet Theatre of Annapolis, Sarasota Ballet of Florida and the 
Cincinnati Ballet. In addition, the petitioner's resume indicates that he has performed as a soloist and 
principal dancer in numerous productions, including Swan Lake, Giselle, Carmen and The 
Nutcracker. 
Page 11 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role 
within the entire organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or 
establishment. 
In the instant petition the record contains evidence that the petitioner has been a principal dancer for 
some dance companies, whch may be considered a leading or critical role. However, what the record 
lacks is objective documentary evidence that any of the dance companies, with whom the petitioner 
was a principal dancer, enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
We concur with the director's findings. Aside from the ballet companies7 own self-serving promotional 
material or letters of support prepared by the petitioner's acquaintances, there is no evidence showing that the 
ballet companies for whlch the petitioner performed as a principal dancer had distinguished national or 
international reputations. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high remuneration 
for senices, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted his 2002 contract with Ballet Tennessee reflecting compensation of $21,600 for a "9 
month term of employment." The plain language of this criterion, however, requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no national salary statistics as 
a basis for comparison showing that hts compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
There is no indication that the petitioner earns a level of compensation placing him among the highest paid ballet 
dancers or instructors at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion calls for commercial success in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting event 
programs, letters of support, promotional material, and published articles indicating that the petitioner 
participated in various performances cannot meet the plain wording of the regulation. The record includes no 
evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner's performances drew record crowds, 
were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in greater audiences than other similar performances that did 
not feature the petitioner. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Further, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence of specific achievements in the United States establishing that he has sustained national 
acclaim in this country since his arrival in 1997. 
Page 12 
Beyond the regulatory criteria, the petitioner submitted several letters of support attesting to his skill as a 
dancer and teacher. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 
1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. While letters of support may place the evidence for the regulatory 
criteria in context, they cannot serve as primary evidence of the achievement required by each criterion. Pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, the classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of 
sustained national or international acclaim, and the petitioner cannot arbitrarily replace such evidence with 
attestations from the petitioner's acquaintances, who assert that they find his abilities to be extraordinary. 
Documentation in the record indicates that the petitioner was the beneficiary of multiple approved 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petitions filed in his behalf. However, extraordinary ability in the nonimmigrant context 
means distinction, whch is not the same as sustained national or international acclaim. Section 101(a)(46) of 
the Act explicitly modifies the criteria for the 0-1 extraordinary ability classification in such a way that makes the 
nonimmigrant 0-1 criteria less restrictive for an individual in the arts, and thus less restrictive than the criteria for 
immigrant classification pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
mle CIS has approved several 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, these prior 
approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, 
standard. In publishing the proposed rule, legacy INS specifically distinguished the 0-1 nonimmigrant category 
from the high standard set for immigrant visa extraordinary ability category. See 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 
(July 5, 1991). It must be noted that many 1-1 40 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS approves prior 
nonimrnigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); ZKEA US 
v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because CIS spends less time reviewing 1-1 29 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-1 40 
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Znc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas AM Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 
(5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
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. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a se~ce center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf 
of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 
Page 13 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), am, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), 
cert. denied, 122 S .Ct. 5 1 (200 1). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. As discussed above, sigmficant discrepancies regarding the petitioner's two most 
recent award diplomas, allegedly received at the "Fourth International Ballet Competition 'Vaganova Prix'" 
held in "St. Petersburg, Russia" from June 19 - 26, 1998 and the Third International Ballet Competition 
"Maya" in August 1995, have not been resolved by independent and objective evidence. We reiterate that doubt 
cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
591. Even if we were to accept as authentic the remaining documentation, the evidence indicates only that the 
petitioner shows talent as a ballet dancer and instructor, but it is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set hm significantly above almost all others in hls field at a national or international level. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fraud and willhl misrepresentation of a 
material fact. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly misrepresented his past achievements 
and submitted fraudulent documentation in an effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on 
elements material to his eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of 
the United States.