dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballet Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11063 773 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a ballet dancer and teacher, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § l 153(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision . The matter is now before us on a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(4). 
Under the above regulations, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and 
a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition. 
Instead, the filing is a motion to reopen and reconsider our most recent decision. Therefore, we cannot 
consider new objections to the earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make 
new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 
international 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 criteria 
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) 
( 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
2 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's career in Europe encompassed work as a dancer, choreographer, producer, and 
teacher. He later entered the United States as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, where he has taught at various 
dance schools. 
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 Petitioner claims to have met six criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
In our appellate decision, we concluded that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria, 
numbered (iv) and (vii). On motion, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria 
numbered (i) and (viii). The Petitioner does not contend that we erred in our conclusions regarding 
the other previously claimed criteria. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's motion, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he satisfies 
the requirements of at least three criteria, for the reasons discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien '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 claims to have received two qualifying awards. In our dismissal notice, we concluded 
that the Petitioner had not established national or international recognition for either award. 
In our appellate decision, we noted that the Petitioner had submitted a photograph of "what appears to 
be a poster or flier advertising the.__ _________ _. award ceremony," which listed several 
names, including that of the Petitioner. We noted that, without an English translation, "it is not clear 
whether those listed were award winners, the scheduled performers at the award ceremony, or both." 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a new English translation of the flier, which does clarify the issue. 
The translated flier lists the Petitioner as one of several entertainers who "will brighten the evening" 
by performing at the award ceremony. Therefore, the flier and its translation are not documentation 
of the Petitioner's receipt of the award. 
The Petitioner notes that the flier refers to the I IA ward as an "International A ward" ("Premio 
Internazionale"). The awarding entity's own use of this term is not evidence of the prize's recognition 
outside of the awarding organization itself 
3 
The Petitiond had previously submitted supporting letters from the president of the cultural club that 
organized th A wards from 1984 to 1992 and from an Italian television personality who was 
one of the presenters at the award ceremony. In our appellate decision, we acknowledged these letters, 
but stated: "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 [claimed], it is reasonable to expect independent evidence 
regarding the award and the national recognition associated with it." Because the Petitioner did not 
submit any such independent evidence, we concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the 
I !Award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits new letters from the same two individuals. Because both people 
were closely involved with thel IAwards, their letters are not direct evidence of recognition of 
the awards outside of the presenting organization itself. The Petitioner cites no independent 
corroboration of the claims in the letters. Furthermore, letters written nearly 30 years after the fact do 
not suffice to show that the I IA wards attracted significant attention or recognition in 1991. 
The other award under consideration isl I which the Petitioner received in 2007. After 
reviewing the record, we determined: "The submitted evidence reflects that thel I award 
is intended to recognize natives of I lor the I I region who have gone on to achieve 
prominence in their respective fields," thus greatly limiting the award's scope and contradicting the 
Petitioner's earlier claim that "there are no . .. limitations placed on competitors." The Petitioner does 
not directly address or rebut this determination. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a letter from a photographer who received al I Award 
at the same time as the Petitioner. This individual states that the award ceremony was "an 
extraordinary gala evening," during which "other very famous people" also received the award. An 
award recipient's opinion of the award does not establish national or international recognition of that 
award. 
The Petitioner contends that the award receives significant media coverage, but he does not show, on 
motion, that this coverage extent beyonl I I Italy. A previously submitted article 
about the awards is from a loca publication; a second article is from an unidentified source, 
as we noted previously. 
The Petitioner has not introduced material new facts that would change our conclusions regarding the 
claimed awards, and he has not shown that we erred in our appellate decision with respect to those 
awards. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner previously claimed leading or critical roles for various organizations and events. On 
motion, the Petitioner focuses on two organizations: the Associazione Generale Italiana dello 
Spettacolo (AGIS) (a trade union for entertainers), and the~------------~ (a 
theatrical group and school). 
4 
We determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his role with AGIS was leading or critical. 
The initial evidence indicated that the Petitioner had served as "coordinator of the dance division of 
AGIS of~-------~' indicating that the Petitioner's position was at a regional subdivision. 
This evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's regional position was leading or critical for AGIS 
as a whole, or that the I ~ regional subdivision has a distinguished reputation in its own 
right. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits two new letters. A choreographer who preceded the Petitioner as a 
regional coordinator describes the Petitioner's election to the post and some of the initiatives that the 
Petitioner undertook in that position. The letter does not specify whether AGIS implemented the 
Petitioner's work beyond the regional level, and the Petitioner does not submit national-level 
documentation that might have clarified the point. 
The secretary of the same regional office asserts that "thanks to the ... initiatives undertaken by [the 
Petitioner] in the function of [his] mandate as Coordinator, the sector has seen an increase in the 
number of members and achieve[d] important objectives for the whole of AGIS." The official does 
not elaborate, and the motion does not include evidence from AGIS beyond the regional level. 
On motion, a director and choreographer who worke~ attests to the Petitioner's leading role 
as the organization's founder and president, and thatl__J "was thl top j'alianl I school of its 
time," but the statements of an employee do not suffice to establish s reputation. 
The Petitioner asserts, on motion, that c=J' s "reputation . . . is evidenced by the long list of 
productions the company has put on," as well as the caliber of artists whom it employed. A "long list 
of productions" attests to the company's viability but does not necessarily indicate a ~uished 
reputation. The claimed reputations of past employees is, at best, an indirect reflection onl__J s own 
reputation. 
The Petitioner states that he "previously submitted various website and newspaper articles attesting to 
~------~l's success in the industry. Their productions were revered world-wide as the 
articles talk about the popularity of the shows and its reception from th~e." Most of the articles 
in question are preview pieces for then-upcomingc=]productions inl__J. Such previews appear 
to amount to routine promotion of local performances, rather than a privilege inherently reserved for 
distinguished theatrical organizations. (One of the submitted items appears to be incomplete, 
comprising only a headline and one sentence; it is not clear whether the piece derives from a preview 
of an upcoming performance or a review of a performance that had already taken place.) The 
Petitioner does not explain how these four articles about gerformances in I I Italy 
demonstrate "world-wide" recognition fo~or establish thatl lhas a distinguished reputation 
compared to other theater companies. 
The Petitioner has not introduced material new facts that would change our conclusions regarding his 
role at AG
1
s, anl he has not shown that we erred in our appellate decision with respect to his roles at 
AGIS or at 
5 
The remainder of the Petitioner's brief on motion concerns the claim that the Petitioner has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim. The issue of such acclaim is relevant in the context of the 
final merits determination. Because the Petitioner has not shown that he meets at least three of the ten 
threshold criteria from 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we need not proceed to a final merits determination 
that would address the larger issue of sustained acclaim. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
G