dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballet

MATTER OF M-B-T-A-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 22, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a ballet company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award or 
met the requirements of at least three of ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director misinterpreted the 
criterion relating to media about the Beneficiary, and ignored evidence of an award the Beneficiary 
received. The Petitioner further asserts that Beneficiary meets four of the evidentiary criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
.
Matter of M-B-T-A-S-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is -probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary, a ballet dancer and instructor, met one of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), . relating to the artistic display of his work. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the evidentiary criteria concerning prizes and 
awards, media about him and his work, and his role for organizations with a distinguished 
reputation. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree that it establishes that the 
Beneficiary's work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions, but do not find that he meets the 
requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner notes that the Director did not discuss the evidence submitted under this criterion in 
his decision, and resubmits evidence in the form of a letter from the 
The letter indicates that the Beneficiary received two prizes from this organization: the 
2007 and 
2010. The letter further states that these prizes were awarded in a ballet competition, which other 
biographic materials in the record indicate is the Egyptian national ballet competition. However, no 
documentation of the prizes, such as a copy of a certificate and/or photograph of a medal or trophy, 
was submitted, and the absence of this primary evidence is not explained in the letter or elsewhere in 
2 
.
Matter of M-B-T-A-S-
the record. In addition, the record does not include evidence in support of the national or 
international recognition of these prizes, or any other evidence regarding the competitions at which 
they were won, such as the number of competitors, awards given, and any media coverage of the 
competition or awards. Without further evidence regarding these prizes and any recognition they 
may have, we cannot find that this evidence establishes that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the advisory opinion it obtained for purposes of the 
previous nonimmigrant petition for 0-1 visa status for the Beneficiary should be considered as a 
prize or award. However, this determination by the was not 
made in the course of any sort of competition or selection; it is an opinion letter created for purposes 
of the nonimmigrant visa petition only, and it is limited to the Beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 visa 
status. Therefore, we do not find that it is a prize or award which qualifies under this criterion. 
Accordingly, this criterion has not been met. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted several materials under this criterion, including an interview of the 
Beneficiary that appeared in the January/February 2015 issue of , a review of the 
Petitioner's performance of posted on the website an article about 
the (no author provided) from and other similar local 
publications. The Director, while mentioning only two articles, stated that these materials did not 
qualify under this criterion because they were not "primarily about the petitioner." While the 
Petitioner correctly asserts on appeal that the regulation does not include the word "primarily," in 
order for material to be about the Beneficiary and his work, they must focus on him to some extent. 
Articles that do not pertain to the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). In all but one case, the material is about a 
performance by a ballet company, or a review of a particular performance, in which the Beneficiary 
is mentioned as one of the company members or performers. These materials do not qualify as being 
about the Beneficiary and his work as a dancer. 
The brief interview of the Beneficiary that appears in has him and his work as a 
ballet dancer as its only focus. However, the evidence does not establish that this material qualifies 
as a professional publication or as major media. We note that the cover describes the publication as 
but this single promotional statement is insufficient to meet 
the requirements of this criterion. The record lacks evidence demonstrating that the magazine 
qualifies as a professional or trade magazine. Similarly, the Petitioner has not established that the 
evidence from other sources of published material are professional or trade in nature, or qualify as 
major media. Their titles indicate a focus on local sections of the --~-- metropolitan 
3 
.
Matter of M-B-T-A-S-
area. For these reasons, we find that the submitted evidence does not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
Generally, a critical role is one in which an individual is responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. In addressing this criterion on appeal, the Petitioner refers to the 
letter submitted by its Artistic Director, __ She does not assert that the role played 
by the Beneficiary is a leading one for its organization, but claims that it is critical since the 
company's programming is set one year in advance, and the loss of the Beneficiary would cause a 
"substantial disruption in our activities." However, the Petitioner does not explain how this 
differentiates the Beneficiary from other dancers and staff members who are also part of its planned 
programs. Although dancers in general are critical to the operation of a dance company, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary in particular is responsible for the Petitioner's 
standing or success. also indicates that the Beneficiary is a highly regarded dance 
instructor for the Petitioner, such that "students compete to be included in his classes." Without 
further evidence regarding the staff, classes, and students, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary plays a critical role for the Petitioner as an instructor. 
Several letters submitted from the Beneficiary's previous employers and colleagues, including those 
with the (VA) Ballet and the indicate that he played a lead dance 
role in several performances 1• For example, who has danced with both of these 
companies along with the Beneficiary and serves as the Artistic Director of the 
states that the Beneficiary performed leading roles in 
Artistic Director for the confirms that the 
Beneficiary toured with the as a soloist and performed the lead role in 
during the company's tour of Spain in October 2010. Also, === co-founder of the 
states that the Beneficiary played ___ in his production of 
The Beneficiary's role as a dancer with the in Virginia is confirmed by its Co-
Director, who indicates that he "has performed to sold-out audiences consistently 
during the 2014 season." And Artistic Director of the 
: in , Maryland, states that the Beneficiary became a faculty 
member in August 2015 and proved to be a reliable and professional teacher. She adds that the 
Beneficiary was hired in January 2016 to perform a role in the company's production of 
1 Although not all of the letters which were submitted are mentioned here, all were thoroughly reviewed. Not all of the 
writers of these letters specifically address a leading or critical role played by the Beneficiary. 
4 
Matter of M-B-T-A-S-
Programs and media materials confirm some of these and other leading dance roles that the 
Beneficiary has performed. However, the Petitioner has not established that playing a lead role in a 
performance establishes that the Beneficiary played a leading role for those ballet companies overall. 
While these letters praise the Beneficiary for his work ethic, versatility, and energy, they do not 
establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of the organizations or establishments. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion.2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally recognized 
award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Beneficiary has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-B-T-A-S-, ID# 1288983 (AAO Aug. 22, 2018) 
2 Since the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has played a leading or critical role for the organizations 
that he has been associated with, we need not address whether any of those organizations have a distinguished reputation. 
5