dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 16,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a ballroom dancer and instructor, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and argues that he meets at least one 
additional criterion. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-C-
(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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itselt~ establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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), af{'d , 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (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 (USCJS) 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 Petitioner is a ballroom dancer who patiicipates in competitions and events in the United States 
and Europe and also instructs students. As 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the awards criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The 
record reflects that he finished in second place at the 20 14 supporting the 
Director's decision. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met the display criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) based on his performances at hotels and on cruise ships. Moreover, the 
Petitioner submits evidence on appeal satisfying the judging criterion under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Specifically, he served on the judging panel in the juvenile, junior, and youth 
categories for the and competitions in Belarus. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has met at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter~~ A-C-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, making him one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. In a final merits detern1ination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter , we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner participated in events with his as 
from January 2003 to December 2011. 1 During that time, his highest finish in 
the category of the open 
open competitions was sixth place at the 2004 Ukraine. In total, he had 
three top ten finishes and 19 finishes that ranged from 14th to 63rd. The Petitioner also presented 
evidence showing that he received third prize in the program at the 2004 
m Ukraine, and first prize in 
the program at the 2005 m Belarus. 
The Petitioner provided a list of his competitions in the United States from September 2014 to June 
2016? The evidence shows that the Petitioner competed in five events in the professional 
category, placing fifth, his highest finish, at the 2014 in 
Massachusetts. In the professional ballroom section , the Petitioner participated in two events, 
placing second in the m Massachusetts, and fourth place at the 
m Massachusetts. We note that these 
competitions are in the "rising star" division, which "allows professional dancers to compete only if 
they didn't make it to the third round of the Professional division. This means that the competition is 
easier at this level. "3 
In considering the totality of his finishes from 2003 to 2014, he received one first place, second 
place, and third place finish . The Petitioner has not demonstrated, however , that such achievements 
have garnered his sustained national or international acclaim and that they reflect a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. ·Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Furthermore, awards won by the Petitioner in competitions that were limited by his amateur 
1 
See letter from chairperson for the . 
2 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time ofthe filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Once eligibility is established as of the 
time of filing, we will also review and consider other evidence in the record. 
3 See http://www. 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
3 
accessed on February 28, 20 17, and 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-C-
status, or in the "rising star" division, do not indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who 
[has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). There is no 
indication that the competitions included performers from throughout the Petitioner's field, rather 
than being mostly limited to amateur and aspiring dancers. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Although he documented his memberships with the 
and the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence reflecting the membership requirements to show that these associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly, his memberships do not serve as evidence that his "achievements have been recognized 
in the field of expertise. " See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
While the Petitioner offered a partial article from the regarding 
a whose was amputated as a result of the 2013 the atticle is 
not about the Petitioner. Rather, the Petitioner is mentioned one time as being a partner at an event.4 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a single article published in this newspaper is 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The Petitioner has not shown that his 
press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among "that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top ofthe field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With regard to his judging experience, the Petitioner participated on a judging panel for two 
compehhons , and The competitions , however , are among juveniles , 
juniors, and · youths, and "[hundreds of young competitors from different Dance Sport studios 
participate and tight for the title of champion of the city." 5 An evaluation of the significance of the 
Petitioner's judging experience is acceptable under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11, to determine if 
such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive 
classification. The Petitioner has not shown that his judging experience sets him apart from others in 
his field, such as by providing evidence that he has served as a judge of acclaimed ballroom dancers 
or of a prestigious national or international competition rather than students 'or amateurs at local 
competitions. Accordingly, the evidence under this criterion does not support a finding that he "is 
one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. " See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Pertaining to his artistic display, the Petitioner has participated in tournaments and competitions. In 
addition, the Petitioner has performed on cruise ships and at hotel resorts and community events, 
4 The Petitioner also submitted a screenshot indicating that 
that the interview showed the Petitioner dancing with 
Petitioner relating to his work. 
5 See letter from deputy director of 
interviewed While it appears 
the focus of the interview was not about the 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-C-
such as and the 
As it is expected that a dancer, such as the Petitioner, would perform in a dance setting at 
festivals, exhibitions, and other events, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of his work 
is reflective of acclaim consistent with this highly restrictive classification. Here, the Petitioner did 
not establish that his exhibitions garnered attention in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim . Further, he did not demonstrate that his performances brought praise from 
critics, drew notable crowds, raised attendance , or were responsible for the success or standing of the 
events or establishments . The submitted evidence does not distinguish the Petitioner's shows from 
others in his field, and is not reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723 at 59. 
In addition, the Petitioner presented evidence reflecting his earnings from 
and He did not, however, offer 
evidence comparing his salaries to other dancers and performers on cruise ships and resorts, so as to 
show that he commands a high salary at the top of his field. The Petitioner also submitted letters 
indicating his private dance lesson fees range from $27 to $35 per session. According 
provided by the Petitioner , the national average hourly rate is between $10 and 
$37 per hour. As such, the Petitioner commands a salary that is within the national average and does 
not distinguish him from being "one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In summary, the Petitioner's evidence is not sufficient to establish that he has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim , or that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field 
of endeavor. We find that the record as a whole does not reflect extensive documentation showing 
that the Petitioner's ac)lievements have been recognized in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
non immigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS 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 J-140 immigrant petitions are 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 Brothers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. 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 (E.D. La.), a.ffd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001) , cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
5 
Matter of A-C-
\ 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-C-, ID# 284833 (AAO Mar. 16, 2017) 
6