dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballet Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7533673 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 24, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a ballet dancer and master teacher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
established that he satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets five 
additional criteria and is qualified for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a ballet dancer and master ballet teacher who trained at the Institute of State Ballet 
of I I His biography indicates that he has performed in European theaters with Italian ballet 
companies, as well as in Italian films and television shows. In addition to his work as a performer, he 
founded a youth dance competition, an agency for performing artists, a musical theater company, and 
a performing arts training center in his native Italy, and has worked as a master teacher with several 
ballet schools in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary 
criteria, relating to judging the work of others in his field. The Petitioner provided evidence that he 
has served on a judging panel for the.__ _____ ___. youth dance competition and therefore we 
agree with the Director that this criterion was met. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets five additional evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), discussed below. 1 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that 
the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the ten initial 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) 
1 Previously, the Petitioner also claimed to meet the criterion relating to commercial success in the perf01ming arts at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(x). The Director found that he not submit sufficient evidence to establish that he met this criterion, and 
the Petitioner does not contest this issue on appeal. Therefore, we deem the issue to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A­
S-, 24 T&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant considerations 
regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but 
are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international 
significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well 
as any limitations on competitors. 3 
The Petitioner claims that he has received two qualifying awards, including a 1991 I I A ward." 
The Petitioner submitted a photograph which, according to the index accompanying the initial 
evidence, depicts him receiving the award statue from presenter! I He also submitted what 
appears to be a poster or flier advertising the 1 1'91 Sport Spettacolo" award ceremony, but this 
evidence was not accompanied by an English translation. Any document in a foreign language must 
be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. While the poster includes the 
Petitioner's name among a list of individuals, all of whom appear to be identified as performing artists, 
it is not clear whether those listed were award winners, the scheduled performers at the award 
ceremony, or both. The Petitioner asserts that it is a "public announcement regarding the awarding of 
the prizes issued by theLJorganization," but without an English translation, we cannot determine 
whether the evidence supports this claim. 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner provided a biography forl I which 
indicates that he is an Italian television ersonality. The Petitioner also provided a letter froml I 
I I president of,___..----,------ I ~ states that thd I club organized the 
"International Award,____~ from 1984 to 1992, and states that "[i]n those years thd I 
AW ARD was in Italy, the most important event, which rewarded the most important personalities in 
the world of art, culture, entertainment, politics and society." He further states that the winners were 
national and international celebrities and provides the names of athletes, performing artists, journalists, 
scientists and others who had won the award. Finally,! lstates that at the time he received 
the award, the Petitioner had just participated in the Italian television program I I and 
that "it was a great opportunity for us to recognize this I IA WARD to the young and talented 
dancer." 
While the untranslated poster or flier for the award event appears to identify ~------~ 
I t as one of three organizers of the I I award, I ts letter alone does not provide 
sufficient evidence regarding the background of the award or the awarding entities to establish that it 
is a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the Petitioner's field. If the award 
is or was in fact considered one of the most important awards that can be earned by artists and 
entertainers in Italy as stated b~ l it is reasonable to expect independent evidence regarding 
the award and the national recognition associated with it. Although the Petitioner indicated that the 
referenced poster or flier served as a "public announcement" of the award winners, it appears to 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 Id. 
3 
advertise the award ceremony; it does not establish that the award was nationally publicized or 
recognized. 
The Petitioner also P.rovided evidence that he received a .__ _________ ____,Award in 2007, 
which translates to '---------~ A ward." The Petitioner submitted a photograph of him 
receiving the award, copies of posters or fliers for the awards ceremonies held in the years 2007 
~h 2012, as well as a letter fro~ lwho indicates that he co-founded thel I 
L__J award in 2007 "to enhance and reward important personalities of our Italian and international 
society recognizing their commitment and talent in their work."I I confirms the Petitioner's 
receipt of the award and states he was recognized "for his incredible career, which had seen him star 
in theater, cinema and television." 
The Petitioner also provided two published articles that provide additional background regarding the 
,..a.-"l'-'J.L....___,LI.J.l.........._~.__.:u..._........,c.J.L.J'-"-.LLLJ'-"·....,, u.........u,.J..LJ..J.j. an unidentified source is titled L I 
'-----r--------.----------~ Award' to I I" Accordini to the article, 
the .__ ____ ~award is "aimed at assigning recognition to personalities" in politics, film, music, 
science, literature and the arts, "in partnership with Region, Province, and Community o~ I 
that have been the subject of r h blic agencies." The Petitioner also 
submitted an article titled .__----~--------r-1-----'- ........ ....._.......,~ebsite Brindisi Sera 
(www.brindisisera.it) which announced the winners of the 2009.__ ____ ~ award. Based on the 
information in the article, the prize is awarded to recipients born in the southern Italian city ofl I 
or greater! I region, who have achieved success in the arts, business, athletics and other fields. 
The submitted evidence reflects that the.__ _____ ~award is intended to recognize natives of 
I I or the I lregion who have gone on to achieve prominence in their respective fields. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that thel I is a 
nationally or internationally-recognized prize or award for excellence. While the Petitioner claims on 
appeal that the Petitioner provided "undisputed evidence of media coverage" of his receipt of both 
awards, as noted above, the record does not contain such evidence. The media coverage related to the 
I I award is not from 2007, the year in which he was a recipient. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, noting that, while he provided 
many articles about projects and productions with which he was associated, the articles were not about 
him and only briefly mentioned his involvement. Further, the Director acknowledged that the 
Petitioner submitted three articles that were about him and his work in the field, as required by the 
language of this criterion, but determined that he did not provide evidence that the articles appeared 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he submitted two articles from La Gazetta del Mezzogiorno 
and an article from Danza Si that satisfy all requirements of this criterion. The first of the two articles 
from La Gazetta def Mezzogiorno was published inl 12009 and includes an interview with 
the Petitioner about the musical I I performed by 
I I The second article from this newspaper is about the Benefici,_a-ry_'_s-re_c_e-ip_t_o_f_a_n__, 
unidentified award and briefly discusses the highlights of his career; however, the Petitioner provided 
a partially illegible photocopy of the original article which does not identify the date of publication or 
the author of the article. 4 
Since La Gazetta del Mezzogiorno is a daily newspaper and not a professional or trade publication, 
the Petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that it qualifies as "major media" in Italy. Evidence 
of published material in a major media publication should establish that the circulation is high 
compared to other circulation statistics. 5 The Petitioner has relied in part on a translated Wikipedia 
page for La Gazetta del Mezzogiorno in support of its claim that this newspaper qualifies as a major 
medium, consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . We note that Wikipedia is an 
online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity 
of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (last visited Jan. 10, 2020), https://en.wikipedia.org 
/wiki/Wikipedia: General disclaimer; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). The Petitioner 
also provided what appears to be a page from the newspaper's press kit which provides an "average 
annual circulation" figure for 201 7 and states that it is "one of the oldest Italian newspapers." However 
the Petitioner does not include comparative data reflecting how the circulation of La Gazetta del 
Mezzogiorno compares to that of other daily newspapers in Italy. Without this context, we cannot 
determine that this newspaper is recognized as a major medium. 
As noted, the Petitioner indicates that his 1991 interview with the monthly dance newspaper Danza Si 
also satisfies the published materials criterion. The interview is about the Petitioner and his work in 
the field, but we agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish that Danza Si is a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium. A screenshot of the publication's 
website indicates that the DanzaSi Cultural Association was established in 1990 and published its first 
"monthly magazine" in March 1990 as "the only one in the Italian publishing scene dealing with dance 
but from the point of view of the operators." The record does not contain additional information 
regarding the circulation of the publication or its intended audience in support of the Petitioner's claim 
that it a professional or major trade publication or major media. 
Finally, the Director determined that an article published in Il Corsivo: Luci Della Ribalta is about the 
Petitioner and his work in the field. We agree, but, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence to establish that this publication is a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media, and the Petitioner has not referenced this article or publication on appeal. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not submit evidence that satisfies this 
criterion. 
4 The Petitioner's response to the RFE included a third article titled.__ _____________ __, which 
is about him and his career as a dancer. The Petitioner states that the article appeared in La Gazetta de! Mezzogiorno, but 
the article does not identify the name of the publication, the date, or the author of the material. The Petitioner does not 
reference this article on appeal. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra at 7. 
5 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have significantly impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed to meet this criterion based on the following: (1) he founded the first 
musical performing arts training center inl I Italy, a musical performing arts company that 
performed original works, a youth dance competition, and a performing arts agency to represent elite 
European dancers; and (2) he directed, produced, and choreographed original work for live 
performance and television. While the Petitioner submitted evidence regarding his involvement in the 
referenced projects, the evidence did not address how any of these activities were both original and 
significantly influential in the field of dance. 
The Petitioner also submitted 12 testimonial letters praising his abilities as a dancer, teacher, and 
choreographer, but few of these even mentioned the original contributions referenced above. 6 The 
Petitioner submitted a letter froml I director ofl I a Canadian dance 
comp n es that the Pet1t10ner was "the first to organize a dance competition 
called and the winners received the opportunity to study dance in America." 
Another letter, from of indicates that his New York-based dance 
program artnered with the competition and notes the Petitioner also directs 
the '~-.----..,..--------~·" However, neither! I nor I I comment 
on how either of these endeavors ( a dance competition and a musical theatre group) represent an 
original contribution of major significance in dance. While both endeavors offered artistic 
development and performance opportunities to dancers inl l Italy, the record does not reflect 
how the Petitioner's work was original or how it significantly or widely impacted his field. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner has emphasized that he is well known for teaching the i I 
ballet technique in its purest form, noting that his teaching "has helped I I reach thousands and 
thousands of students and dancers worldwide." Further, the Petitioner stated that"[ s ]ince it is the purest 
form of the art itself, this contribution of the field encourages traditional forms of dance to reemerge." 
Some of the submitted letters mention the Petitioner's expertise in the I !technique, but they do 
not demonstrate how his technique is original or how he has used it to make a contribution of major 
significance to the field. For example Director of the ~----------~ 
states that her dance school uses methods based on the~~ _ __,technique and notes that it is difficult 
to find al ~trained instructor who has the Petitioner's extensive experience in both teaching and 
performin~. Similarly,! I founder ofthe~------~Academy, states that the Russian 
I [method used at her school is "known to be the most powerful and effective technique in ballet 
training." She notes that the method is mainly used in ballet schools in the former Soviet Union, noting 
that few U.S. schools use the method "due to lack of teachers and knowledge." She praises the 
Petitioner's teaching and choreography, and mentions that he has been teaching the highest level of 
6 Although we highlight only select letters in this discussion, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
classes at her school. Most of the other letters mention the I I technique only in passing or not 
at all, although they generally praise the Petitioner's technique, teaching, and artistic abilities. 
The Director determined that while the evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had impacted the 
dance students he taught, he had not demonstrated widespread implementation of his techniques or an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. Rather, the Director found that he had "refined 
and built on existing traditions." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion as a dancer and master instructor of the 
I I technique he learned at a prestigious dance school inl I Although he did not create 
the teaching method, he states that he "does teach the purest form of it and accordingly, has contributed 
artistically and athletically in this field of dancing." In addition, the Petitioner maintains that his 
"teaching of the purest form ofl I has revolutionized dance," and continued the legacy of the 
method, "a feat no other dance instructor can claim." 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the submitted letters from dance instructors "attest to his highest 
instructor and his abilities in teaching and dancing I O l" As noted, only two of the submitted 
letters discuss thel !teaching tradition, and both are from instructors who used the method in 
their schools prior to hiring the Petitioner. While the submitted letters highly praise the Petitioner's 
abilities as a dancer and instructor, they do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the 
significant influence his ballet and teaching career have had on the overall field, and they do not 
support the Petitioner's own claims that he "revolutionized dance" or that there is "no other dance 
instructor" capable of teaching th~ I method to the next generation of ballet dancers. Letters 
that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and 
its impact on subsequent work add value. 7 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 8 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Here, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner has been a successful professional dancer and 
instructor whose traditional teaching method is valued and sought after by ballet schools. However, 
for the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, emphasizing that it is "limited to the 
visual arts" and that the Petitioner "has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at artistic 
exhibitions and showcases." We disagree with the Director's determination that the plain language of 
the regulation renders this criterion applicable only to visual artists. The regulation requires only that 
the work displayed be a given petitioner's own work product and that the venues at which the 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
8 Id. at 9. 
7 
individual's work was displayed be artistic exhibitions or showcases. 9 As certain exhibitions or 
showcases featuring performing artists meet the plain language of this regulation, the Director should 
have considered the submitted evidence. Upon review, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his 
stage performances as a principal ballet dancer in productions at various European venues. We find 
the evidence sufficient to satisfy 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) 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. Regarding 
a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 10 Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organizations or 
establishments to have a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 11 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because, although he played a role as 
the founder or co-founder of various groups such as thel I and the 
~-~--~------ he did not provide evidence to demonstrate the distinguished re12utation 
of these organizations. The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's involvement with the[ I I I but found that he did not provide detailed and probative 
information that specifically addressed how his role was leading or critical for this organization. 
Finally, the Director found that although the record demonstrated the Petitioner's roles in various 
dance productions, he did not demonstrate how shows and productions qualify as "organizations and 
establishments." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that organizations founded or co-founded by the Petitioner, including 
~ I the and the youth dance competition 
I "have garnered widespread fame by producing and discovering many talented 
dance students that have gone on to do great things." He points to the previously submitted testimonial 
letters and published media in support of this claiu,.,__.......,......_........,u..u. .................. '1..-.QY..i....,,.,,.'L...l,2;......,eral newspaper 
articles that covered upcoming local performances of and one article 
that mentions the second edition of the ~-----~competition as a "regional competition" 
open to ballet schools in I O I and "one of the most stimulating opportunities for young local 
talents." This evidence is insufficient to establish that these organizations enjoy a distinguished 
~on, and we note that the submitted media coverage does not reference! I 
L____J; at all. 
9 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 9-10 (stating that officers should use the common 
dictionary definitions of "exhibition" and "showcase" in evaluating this criterion, and indicating that a "showcase" is "a 
setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone, especially in an attractive or favorable aspect" 
(emphasis added)). 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
11 Id. at 10-11. 
8 
Further, even if we determined that these organizations have a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner 
has not submitted letters from representatives of these entities discussing his leading or critical role, 
nor has he submitted organizational charts or other evidence that would independently confirm his 
position and placement in the organizations' hierarchies. The Petitioner submits secondary evidence 
that mentions his leadership role with these groups, but this evidence cannot substitute for letters from 
his employers or colleagues describing his role within these organizations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l) 
(stating that evidence of experience 'shall' consist ofletters from employers). 
The Petitioner also emphasizes his role as a "Coordinator" with the Italian performing arts association 
I I The Petitioner submitted: (1) a~ 2013 blo article i · , · hat I I took 
over as coordinator of the dance divisio~ of and following the Petitioner's 
resignation; and (2) a letter froml IPresiden who indicated that the Petitioner 
"has been a member of our Union, in the region o~~~~an ~--~ from 2010 to 2013," and "was 
chosen as the I I inl I 2012 and held the job until the end oc=]2013 when 
he resigned."! I states that "thanks to his constant effort and his initiative the number of 
members in the department of dance grew and reached many objectives in that sector." I Is 
letter is vague and it does not mention the Petitioner's role as "coordi~ Further, he does not 
describe the specific duties and functions the Petitioner performed for L_J and does not explain 
with specificity how th~oner performed either a leading role or a critical role that was of 
significant importance to L_j' outcome or activities. 
The Petitioner also maintains that he "submitted over ten supporting letters from various dance 
teachers, companies, and officials that all attest to [his] critical role in either their dance school or a 
reputable local dance school that he has taught at." Ty referenced letrrs do not establish how the 
Petitioner's role has been critical to the dance schools . .__ ____ ___. mentions that the Petitioner 
"is a definite asset" to her school and mentions the success of a particular student he taught, but she 
does not explain in what specific~ has performed or how he has contributed in a significant way 
to her school. I I ofl__J Dance Center indicates that the Petitioner taught two summer 
intensive programs at her studio, and states that he "has made such a huge impact on his students." 
I I art director for I I School for the Performing Arts indicates that the 
Petitioner has been invited to teach master classes, workshops and summer intensive classes, and states 
that "our ballet students are thriving under his tutelage." While these and other letters mention that 
the Petitioner's instruction has improved the performance of individual students, they do not support 
the Petitioner's claim that he has performed in a leading or critical role for dance schools in the United 
States. Further, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of the 
American schools where he has provided his services as an instructor. 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that he "has submitted a number of documents that pertain to his 
critical role in many productions, fashion shows, and musical productions," but he specifically 
references only a 20141 lfashion show, indicating that he served as choreographer for the event. 
However, we agree with the Director's determination that serving a lead or critical role in a discrete 
event or production does not establish that one has held a lead or critical role for an "or anization or 
establishment." The Petitioner submitted an article that appeared on the website o . ......., ....... ~------' 
inOrtaly, announcing thel I fashion show held at the hotel in,__ _ _,2014. The 
article indicates that thel lcorps de ballet would perform at the event, "choreographed by 
I I, and supervised by [the Petitioner]." While the Petitioner might have held an 
9 
important role in supervising the ballet performance held at this particular! I event, the record 
does not establish that this fashion show was an "organization or establishment," nor does it contain, 
for example, a letter from I I attesting to the critical role the Petitioner performs for that 
organization. 
Finally, we acknowledge that with respect to this and other criteria, the Petitioner refers to several 
non-precedent decisions concerning other petitioners who have appealed the denial of their 
extraordinary ability petitions. The referenced decisions were not published as a precedent and 
therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non­
precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may 
be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and 
applicable law and policy. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he fulfills this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are correctly denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
10 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11