dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.s. Departmew or Homeland securh
1½ (%wnship aml lumnguünn kn
\dmimuraut c .\ppeals ( Hfice {A:\t ))
20 Mmachuwm ·\ve.. N.W.. Ms 204u
Washuron.1x 3CC(On
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Âÿ$ j Q f$j‡ Office: NEBRASKA SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)ol theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case. Please
headvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemusthemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievelheAAO inapproprimelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informmionihai you wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a moijon to reopen
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanhefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleaseheawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motionto be filed
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thankyou,
Perry Rhew
Chief.AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.usev.,.gm
Page2
DISCUSSION:The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,andis now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.
Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determinedthat the petitioner had not
establishedthe requisite extraordinaryability through extensivedocumentationand sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiring throughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's "sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the
Act and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The implementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthat
an alien can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof a major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidenceunder at least threeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Onappeal,counselassertsthatthepetitionermeetsatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted comparableevidence of his
extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons
discussedbelow.theAAO will upholdthedirector'sdecision.
l. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(l) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. .. to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswithextraordinaryability.-- An alienisdescribedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhich hasbeendemonstratedby sustainednational
or internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognized
in thefield throughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseekstoentertheUnitedStatestocontinuework in thearea
of extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien'sentry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
Page3
U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration Services(USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthat Congressintendedto seta very high standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723 10I" Cong.,2d
Sess.59 (1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividuals in that small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the
fieldof endeavor.M and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat an alien demonstratehis or her sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimandachievements
must be establishedeither through evidence of a one-time achievement(that is, a major,
internationalrecognizedaward)or throughmeetingat leastthreeof thefollowing tencategoriesof
evidence:
(i) Documentationof the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsforexcellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof the alien'smembershipin associationsin the field for which
classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,
as judged by recognizednational or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields:
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for which classificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividually or on a panel,asajudge
of the work of others in the sameor an allied field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought;
(v) Evidenceof thealien'soriginal scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'swork in thefield atartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandeda highsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield; or
Page4
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownby box office
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,the U.S.Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9* Cir. 2010).Although
the court upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.i With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsabout the significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria.
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."hl. at I 121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedtosubmitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfy the regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(as the AAO concluded)."/d. at
1122(citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollaryto thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedthe requisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha "levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is one
of thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of the[ir] field of endeavor
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),and "that the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednational or internationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability"visa.8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
/d. at i 119-20.
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO win apply the testset forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintainsde novo review, the AAO
will conducta newanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisor herconclusionby usinga one-stepanalysis
ratherthanthe two-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazarian court. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates.229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd. 345F.3d683(9'" Cir. 2003);
seealso Soltanev. DW, 381 F.3d 143, 145(3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO conducts
appellatereviewon adenovobasis).
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantiveor evidentiary requirements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Pace5
II. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on September24, 2010, seeksto classify the petitioner as an alien with
extraordinary ability as a ballroom dancecompetitor and teacher. At the time of filing, the
petitioner was working at Vivo DancesportCenter in HaciendaHeights, California. The
petitioner hassubmitteddocumentationpertainingto the following categoriesof evidenceunder
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).-
Docwnenration of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
The petitioner submitted evidenceshowing that he received nationally recognizedawards in
"Junior " "Amateur and"Rising Star" levelsof dancecompetition. For instance,the petitioner
placed2"din the i LS.OpenProfessional"Rising Star- Competitionin September2009and2"" at
the Polish Championshipsin the "Junior" category in February 1999. The AAO atfirms the
director's finding that theseawards meet the plain languagerequirementsof this regulatory
Criterlon.
l'uhlished material about the alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajor media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethetitle, date,and author of thematerial,and
ansnecessarytranslation.
The AAO withdraws the director's linding that the petitioner meetsthis regulatorycriterion. In
general,in order for publishedmaterial to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the
petitionerand,asstatedin the regulations,beprintedin professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajormedia.To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution. Some newspapers,such as the New York 7'imes,nominally servea
particularlocalitybut would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,
unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers.
The petitionersubmittedeventresultsfor the GermanOpenChampionships(1999)listing the
petitioneramongthenumerousotherPolishcontestantswho placedin thecompetition. Theresults
indicatethatthepetitionerandhispartnerplaced14thin theJuniorIl Latincategory,6th
Il Standardcategory,and 9'" in the Junior II Ten Dancecategory. The petitioneralso submitted
informationentitled"Sport rankingof PolishDanceOrganizationfor l'" of October 1999" listing
thepetitionerandhis partneras l" in theJunior 11Standardcategoryand# in theJunior [I Latin
On appeal,the petitioner does not claim to meetor submit evidencerelating to the categoriesof evidencenot
discussedin this decision.
Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof ihe article. For
example, an article that appearsin the %shington l'ost, but in a section that is distrihured only in Fairfax Coumy,
Viruinia, ior instance,cannot serve io spreadan individual's reputation outside of that county.
Page6
category. Aside from listing the petitioner'snameand ranking,the subrnittedmaterialdoesnot
includeany further informationaboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work. Further,the nameof the
publication,its date,and the authorof the precedingmaterialwere not identified as requiredby
plain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition.thereis no documentary
evidence(suchascirculationdata)showingthattheprecedingeventresultsandrankingswerein a
majortradepublicationor someotherformof majormedia.
The petitioner submittedtwo January1999 articles in The International News entitled "Sunny
DanceFestival Allasio 1999~and"l4lh DanceFestivalin Mannheim,"but theEnglishlanguage
translationsaccompanyingthe articleswere not full andcompletetranslationsas requiredby the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Any documentcontaining foreign languagesubrnittedto
USC[S shall be accompaniedby a fhll English languagetranslationthat the translatorhas
certified ascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertification thatheor sheis competent
to translatefrom the foreign languageinto English. Id. Further,the articlesappearto be about
the llth [talian Open Championshipsin Allasio and the 14'" DanceFestivalCompetitionin
Mannheimratherthanthe petitionerhimself. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthealien." See,e.g. AccordNegro-
Flampen Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *1,*7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga findingthat
articlesabouta showarenotabouttheactor). Moreover,thereis nocirculationevidenceshowing
The/nternationalNewsis a majortradepublicationor someotherform of majormedia.
The petitioner submittedan article in Dance Beat entitled "U.S. Open ProfessionalStandard
Championship" butthedateof thearticlewasnotprovidedasrequiredby theplain languageof this
regulatorycriterion. Further,thearticleonly briefly mentionsthepetitionerin two sentencesandit
is notabouthim. Instead,thearticleis abouttheU.S.OpenProfessionalStandardChampionshipin
general. The petitioneralsosubmitteda February25, 2010 letter from the Editor of DanceBeat
statine:"DanceBeatbeganpublishingin 1990andcontinuestothepresentday.. . . Wedistribute
between2,500to 5.000copiesof thenewspaperpermonth. This is thelargestcirculationof any
dancesportpublication in the USA. ' Regardingthe self-servingassertionsfrom Dance Beat's
editor.USCISneednot relyon self-promotionalmaterial.SeeBragav.Poalos,No.CV 06 5105
SJO(C. D. CA July6, 2007)aff"d2009WL 604888(9thCir. 2009)(concludingthattheAAO did
nothaveto relyonself-servingassertionsonthecoverof a magazineasto themagazine^sstatusas
major media).The petitionerhas failed to submit objectivecirculationevidenceshowingthe
distribution of Dance Beat relative to other newspapersor magazines(such as DanceSport
Magazine)to demonstratethatthesubmittedarticlewaspublishedin a"major" tradepublicationor
someotherformof "major" media.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or
showcases.
The AAO withdraws the director s finding that the petitioner meetsthis regulatory criterion.
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has explainedhow danceperformancesequateto visual art
exhibits. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires1elvidence
Page7
of thedisplay of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases."The petitioner
is a ballroom dancer. Whenhe is dancingin competitionor beforeanaudienceat eventssuchas
Vivo DancesportCenter's annualNew Year's Eve parties,he is not displaying his work in the
samesensethat a painter or sculptor displays his or her work in a gallery or museum. The
petitioneris performinghis work, he is not displayinghis work. In addition,to theextentthat
thepetitioneris a ballroomdancer,it is inherentto hisoccupationto competeandperform. The
AAO notesthat the tencriteria in theregulationsaredesignedto coverdifferent areas:not every
criterion will apply to everyoccupation.
The petitioner submitteda July 10,2010 letter from stating that shehas"trained
nearlyall of theprofessionalson 'Dancing With the Stars' showsaroundthe world."
furtherstates:
In Season6. week 9 of "Dancing with the Stars." the producersof the television show
conducteda professionalstandardgroupclassfor Olympic FigureSkatingChampion,
and her professional artner, The purpose of the
professionalgroup classwas to advise on how to add passionand emotion to her
tangoperformance.
The letter from indicatesthat the etitioner andhis partner, were part
of a special lango group classthat attendedfor advice and instruction. The
May 13,2008 ABC "Dancingwith the Stars"video clip identifiedby shows
and visiting a danceclass taught by instructor . The
tangogroupclassincludedfive or six otherprofessionaldancecouplesin attendanceanddid not
specificallyfocuson thepetitioneror identify him by name. Instead,thefocusof thevideoclip
from the "Dancing with the Stars"televisionepisodewas tangotraining.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasfailed to demonstratethathis work wasspecificallysingledout
for displayin theepisode.TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerwasnotpairedwith a celebrityto
performweekly on thetelevisionseriesin thesamemannerasprofessionaldance
Regardless,the interpretation that 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is
longstandingand hasbeenupheldby a federal district court. Negro-l½mpe r Uk/n, 2:07-CV-
820-ECR-RJJat *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept.8, 2008) (upholding an interpretationthat performances
by a performingartist do not fall under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioneris not a
visual artist and hasnot createdtangiblepiecesof art that wereon displayat exhibitionsor
showcases.the petitioner has not submittedqualifying evidencethat meetsthe plain language
requirementsof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly, thepetitionerhasnot
establishedthathemeetsthis regulatorycriterion.
&idence that thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation,
On appeal.counselassertsthat the petitioner hasperformedin a leadingor critical role for Vivo
DancesportCenter. The etitioner initially submitteda July 6, 2010letter from
and , stating:
Page8
Vivo DancesportCenter (Vivo) is the leading competitive dance studio imd has a
distinguishedreputationin the United States. From the beginning.Vivo's vision was to
create a highly renowned studio known in the ballroom dance community for its
exceptionaldancersin SouthernCalifornia and throughoutthe world. In ten years,Vivo
hassurpassedall neighboringdancestudiosto becomeaninstantlyrecognizablenamein
BaHroomandLatin Dancesport.
* * *
Sincejoining our studio as a competitive Ballroom dancerin 2007, [the petitioner] has
played a critical role in our studio. He hasbecomeour top Ballroom dancer,as he has
won numerouschampionshipstitles and representedour studio in major national dance
competitionssuchasGoldenStateChallenge2008,VegasShowdown2009.Windy City
Open 2009, U.S. NationalsProfessionalStandard,and Ohio Star Ball Professional
Standard. Due to [the petitioner's] reputationas a championshiplevel dancer,he is the
mostdistinguishedBallroomdancerandcoachat our studio. Hecurrentlyis thehighest
paid maleteacherat our studio. [Thepetitioner] earneda minimum of $25 for a fifty (50)
minutedancesessionsduringhis first yearof employmentandis currentlyearning$40
for a fifty (50) minute dancesessionwhile other teachersare only paid $25 for a fifty
(50) minute session. He is alsoprominently featuredin all of our studio's showcasesand
otherdanceactivities,suchasteammatchesand medaltests,throughoutthe year.. . . In
threeyears,[the petitioner] hasincreasedthe numberof studentsat the studio and is the
leadingmale Ballroom instructor in SouthernCalifornia. In conclusion, ßhe petitioner]
has played and continues to play a critical role in our studio, which itself is a
distinguisheddancestudioin theUnited States.
In responseto the director's requestfor evidence,the petitioner submitteda January22, 201I
letterfrom Mr. Dixon stating:
[The petitioner)is the leadingmaleballroomdancerat Vivo DancesportCenterfor the
pastthreeyears.Heteachesprivatedancelessonsto 34 activeballroomstudentsoutof a
total65activeballroomstudents,whichis 52.3%of thestudio'stotalclientbase.[The
petitioner} has the highest percentageof clients comparedto aN other ballroom
mstructors.
F * *
[The petitioner] hasthe highestretentionrateof clients year over year,comparedto all
other ballroomdancers. Approximately,95% of clientswhom [the petitioner]dances
with. return the following year to purchaseadditional dance lessons at the studio.
Therefore, hassignificantlyimprovedtheretentionof clientsatthestudio.
Page9
[The petitioner] is the most successfulmale ballroom dancer from Vivo Dancesport
Center in 2009 and 2010. He representedthe studio at the United States National
ProfessionalStandardCompetitioneachyear,placing higherthanany other dancerat the
studio. His successdirectly benefits the studio as he is the most successfulballroom
dancer.. . . Furthermore,[the petitioner] was alwayschosento perform in the studio's
showcasessuch as annual Vivo New Year Show and his name was always placed
prominentlyon all theshowcaseprogramsasa featuredor stardancerto attractaudiences
since2007whenhestartedworking at thestudio underO-1 status.
* * *
[The petitioner] hasdemonstratedin the pastthreeyearsthat he hasachievedthe highest
ranking in the U.S., amongall ballroom dancersat the studio. Additionally, he hasthe
largest number of studentsover the past years which have remainedwith the studio.
Basedon thesetwo factors,[the petitioner] is paid the highestrateof $40 per 50 minute
lessonat thestudio.
* * *
[The petitioner]hasearneda significantamountof revenuefor the studio from 2007
through2010. A singleprivatedancelessontypically costs$80. [The petitioner] teaches
an averageof 1,000lessonsper year,from 2007 to 2010,as evidencedby his detail
earningstatements.Thus, the total grossrevenuewhich [the petitioner]bringsto the
studio is $80,000(1,000 lessonsper year x $80 per lesson). The amount representsa
significant portionof Vivo DancesportCenter'sannualnetincome.
The precedinginformation in thetwo lettersfrom is sufficient to demonstratethatthe
petitioner has performed in a critical role for Vivo DancesportCenter. The petitioner also
submittedgeneralinformation about Vivo DancesportCenter from its website. Regardingthe
information from Vivo DancesportCenter's website and the self-serving statementsabout the
reputationof the studio from its owner andpresident,USCIS neednot rely on self-promotional
material. SeeBraga v. Poulos,No. CV 06 5105SJO(C. D. CA July 6, 2007)affd 317 Fed.Appx.
680(9thCir. 2009)(COncludingthattheAAO did not haveto relyon self-servingassertionson the
cover of a magazineas to the magazine'sstatusas major media). In addition, the petitioner
submitteda November20,2006articlepostedon theLosAngelesTimeswebsiteentitled"1.2-3, 1-
2-3 -- this is a workout." The article only briefly mentionsthe Vivo DancesportCenterstating:
The Waltz is moreof a workout thanaerobicsor running,' says
. On a Tuesdaynight lastweek,hewasteachingboth
the slow (American)andfaster(Viennese)style waltz to severaldozeneagerstudents." The
precedingarticleis aboutthe healthbenefitsof thewaltz andprovidesno informationaboutthe
reputationof Vivo DancesportCenter.ThepetitioneralsosubmittedaJune2008articleaboutthe
studio in ED1City Newsweekentitled"Vivo - Centerof BallroomDancing,"but the English
languagetranslationaccompanyingthearticlewasnotafull andcompletetranslationasrequiredby
theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Regardless,thissinglearticleaboutthestudioappearing
in a Chineselanguagepublication(whosedistribution is limited to Chinese-speakingresidentsof
Page 10
California) fails to demonstratethat Vivo DancesportCenterhasearneda distinguishedreputation
relativeto otherballroom dancestudiosin the United States. Accordingly, the petitionerhasnot
submitted sufficient documentaryevidence establishing that Vivo DancesportCenter has a
distinguishedreputation.
Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requiresevidence
that the petitionerhasperformedin a leadingor critical role for distinguished"organizationsor
establishments"in the plural. The useof the plural is consistentwith thestatutoryrequirementfor
extensiveevidence. Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act. Significantly,not all of the criteriaat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)are worded in the plural. Specifically,the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.
204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (ix) only requireserviceon a singlejudging panelor a single high salary.
Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto includethesingularwithin theplural,it expresslydoessoas
when it statesat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that evidenceof experiencemustbe in the form of
"letter(s)." Thus.theAAO caninfer thatthepluralin theremainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.
In a different context. federalcourts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significancefrom
whetherthesingularor pluralis usedin a regulation.SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No.06-
2158(RCL) at *L *l2 (D.C. Cir. March26, 2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoß 2006WL
3491005 at *l. *l0 (D. Or. Nov. 30. 2006) (upholding an interpretationthat the regulatory
requirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor ··a'' foreign equivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(l)(2)
requiresa singledegreeratherthana combinationof academiccredentials).Therefore.evenif the
petitionerwereto submitdocumentaryevidenceshowingthatVivo DancesportCenter'sreputation
meetsthe elementsof this regulatorycriterion, which he has not, the plain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(viii)requiresevidenceof a leadingor critical role for more
thanonedistinguishedorganizationor establishment.
Inlightof theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has commandeda high salary or other significantly high
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield.
In responseto thedirector's requestfor evidence.thepetitionersubmittedhis Forms1099-MISC
from Vivo DancesportCenterreflectingearningsof $50,008.93in 2008and$38.427.26in 2009.
Thepetitioneralsosubmittedthefollowing:
1. A list of prizemoniesreceivedby thepetitionerin 2009totaling$6,400;
2. 2009CompetitionResults:
3. Online announcementsfor variouscompetitionslisting availableprize momes:
4. Online information from the U.S. Bureauof Labor Statisticsfor "Dancers" indicating
that they earna meanhourly wageof $16.37($34,049annually)and that the top ten
percentearnin excessof $29.18hourly ($60,694.40annually)
5. U.S. Departmentof Labor PrevailingWage" searchresultsindicatingthattheIzvel 4
(fully competent)wage for I)ancers" in the Los Angeles- læng Beach- Glendale,
Californiametropolitanareais $30,077peryear;
6. Online information from SalaryExpert.comindicating that the "average" salary for a
ballroomdancerin LosAngeles,Californiais $31,911;and
Page11
7. I ettersfrom threeCalifornia dancestudios listing their pay ratesfor teachingdance
lessons.
With regardto items4 and6 above,the petitioner's relianceon "mean" or ''average"salarydata
relating to ··Dancers'' and "Ballroom Dancers" is not a proper basis for cornparison. The
petitionermustsubmitevidenceshowingthat hehasearneda "high" salaryor other"significantly
high" remunerationin relationto othersin thefield, not simply earningsthat areaboveaveragein
the field. The AAO notesthat the petitioner's earningsfor 2008 and 2009 are well below the
$60,694.40yearly earningsfor the top ten percentof dancers(item 4). Further,regardingitems
5 - 7 above,the petitioner's reliance on wage data limited to regions in California is not an
appropriatebasis for comparisonin demonstratingthat his earningsconstitute a high salaryor
othersignificantlyhigh remunerationin relationto othersin hisoccupationworking outsideof those
regions. In regardto items 1 - 7, the submitteddocumentsfail to demonstralethat that the
petitioner has received"significantly high remuneration" in comparisonto other professional
ballroomdancecompetitorsandteachers.SeeMatter of Price,20 I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.
Commr. 1994)(consideringprofessionalgolfer's earningsversusother PGA Tour golfers); see
alsoGrimsonv./NS,934F. Supp.965.968(N.D. Ill. 1996)(consideringNHL enforcer'ssalary
versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995)
(comparingsalary of NHL defensiveplayer to salaryof other NHL defensemen).Accordingly,
thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthis regulatorycriterion.
Summary
TheAAO withdrawsthedirector's determinationthat thepetitionermeetsat leastthreeof theten
categoriesof evidencethat must be satisfied to establishthe minimum eligibility requirements
necessaryto qualify asan alien of extraordinaryability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner
hasfailed to demonstratethat he satisfiesthe antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof
evidence.
B. ComparableEvidenceUnder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4)
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionersubmittedJuly 15.2010letterfrom
statmg:
We sponsorover 20 couplesin the UnitedStates,in all four competitiveballroomdancing
styles.. . . Our sponsoredcouplesmusthaveachieveda placingwithin the top 6 in any
professionalor amateurdivisionat theannualU.S.Nationalscompetition,otherwiseknown
asUnitedStatesDancesportChampionships,heldin Orlando,Florida.
We havechosento sponsor[thepetitioner]andhis partnersinceJune2009.. . . [The
petitioner)andhispartnerareoneof thehighestplacingUnitedStatesrepresentative|sic)in
theProfessionalRisingStar Standarddivision . . .
[Emphasisadded.)
Page12
The letter from statesthat DoréDesignssponsorsboth amateurandprofessionaldance
couples. letter doesnot specify the monetarvvalue of the sponsorshipreceivedby
the petitioner. Further,thereis no documentationindicating the amountsreceivedby the more
thantwentyothercouplessponsoredby DoreDesigns.
On appeal.counselstates: "The evidenceshow [sic] that the petitionerandhis partnerwereone
of over 20 couplessponsoredby Doré Designs,a major ballroom dressdesigner,basedon their
outstandingachievementsin nationalcompetitions,out of 1,346availablecouplesin the United
States.
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4)allows for the submissionof "comparableevidence'
only if the ten categoriesof evidence"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation.
Thus. it is the petitioner's burden to demonstratewhy the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)arenot readilyapplicableto thealien's occupationandhow theevidencesubmittedis
"comparable"to the specificobjectiveevidencerequiredat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). The
regulatorylanguageprecludesthe considerationof comparableevidencein this case,asthereis
no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be
establishedby the ten criteriaspecifiedby the regulationat S C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). In fact,as
indicatedin this decision.thepetitionersubmittedevidencethatspecificallyaddressesmultiple
categoriesof evidencesetforth in the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). Wherean alien is
simplyunableto satisfytheplain languagerequirementsof at leastthreecategoriesof evidence
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3),the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4)does not allow for the
submissionof comparableevidence.
Counsel'sappellatebrief doesnotexplainwhy theregulatorycriteriaarenotreadilyapplicableto
thepetitioner'soccupation. Further,counseldoesnot explain how the documentationindicating
that the petitioner and his sponsorwere able to securea single sponsorshipis "comparable"to
anyspecificobjectiveevidencerequiredat8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). TheAAO notesthatthe
earningsreceivedby thepetitionerhavealreadybeenaddressedundertheremunerationcnterionat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).Regardless,businesssponsorshipsarecommonat all levelsof sports
competition and there is no indication that the monetaryvalue of the petitioner's Doré Designs
sponsorshipis indicativeof sustainednationalor internationalacclaimat thevery topof the field.
C. Final MeritsDetermination
The AAO will nextconducta final meritsdeterminationthat considersall of theevidencein the
contextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(l) a "level of expertiseindicatingthat
the individual is one of that small percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the[ir] field of
endeavor."8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise" Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct; 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian,596 F.3dat 1119-20.In the
presentmatter, many of the deficienciesin the documentationsubmittedby the petitioner have
alreadybeenaddressedin the AAO's discussionof the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and(vii) - (ix).
Page13
With regardto the categoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner submitted
documentationindicating that hereceivednationally recognizedawardsin "Junior " "Amateur.
and''Rising Star" levelsof ballroomdancecompetition. For instance,thepetitionerplaced2* in
the ES. Open Professional"Rising Star" Competition in September2009 and 2"dat the Polish
Championshipsin the "Junior" category in February 1999. The AAO cannot conclude that
petitioner's awardsandresultsin competitionsbelow the top professionallevel demonstratethat
he''is oneof that small percentagewho haverisento the very top of the field of endeavor." See
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitionerseeksa highly restrictivevisa classification,intendedfor
individualsalreadyat the top of their respectivefield, ratherthan for "Junior "Amateur" or
"Rising Star" ballroomdancersprogressingtoward the top at someunspecifiedfuture time.
USCIShaslongheldthatevenathletesperformingat themajorleagueleveldo notautomatically
meet the statutorystandardsfor immigrant classificationas an alien of "extraordinaryability."
MatterofPrice,20l&N Dec.at953,954;56Fed.Reg.at60899.Likewise,it doesnotfollow that
a ballroomdancerwhohaswonprizesin "Junior,""Amateur,"and"Rising Star"levelsof dance
competitionshouldnecessarilyqualify for approvalof anextraordinaryabilityemployment-based
immigrant visa petition. While the AAO acknowledgesthat a district court's decision is not
binding precedent,the AAO notesthat in Matter of Racine, 1995WL 153319at *4 (N.D. Ill.
Feb.16, 1995),thecourt stated:
[T]he plain readingof the statutesuggeststhat the appropriatefield of comparisonis not
a comparisonof Racine'sability with that of all the hockeyplayersat aH levelsof play:
but rather. Racine'sability as a professionalhockey player within the NHL This
interpretationis consistentwith at leastoneothercourt in this district.Grimsonv. INS,
No. 93 C 3354,(N.D. Ill. September9, 1993),and the definition of the term8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforthin thepreambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99.
Although the presentcasearosewithin the jurisdiction of another federaljudicial district and
circuit. the court's reasonineindicatesthat USCIS' interpretationof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2)is reasonable.To find otherwisewould contravenethe regulatory requirementat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentageof
individualsthat haverisento thevery top oftheir field ofendeavor.
TheAAO acknowledgesthatthepetitionerhaswon OpenProfessionalStandardchampionships
in competitionssuchastheGoldenStateChallenge(2008)andtheWindyCity Open(2009),but
there is no documentaryevidenceshowing that the petitioner faced a significant pool of top
professionalsin thosecompetitionsor that his specific prizes from the Golden StateChallenge
andthe Windy City Openwere nationallyor internationallyrecognizedin the field of endeavor.
For instance,thecompetitiveresultssubmittedby thepetitionerfor the2009Windy City Open
indicatethat only threeother dancecouplescompetedagainstthe petitionerand his partner.
Receivinga prize in a regionalcompetition(such as the Golden StateChallenge)or in a
competitivedivision that attractedonly a small numberof nationalcontestants(such as the
ProfessionalStandardDivision at Windy City Open) is not indicative of sustainednational or
internationalacclaimat the very top of the field. Further,the plain languageof the regulationat
8C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)specifically requiresthat the petitioner'sawardsbe nationally or
internationallyrecognizedin the field of endeavorandit is hisburdento establisheveryelementof
Page14
thiscriterion. In thiscase,thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat thepetitionerhas
received an award in the highest division of professionalballroom competition that is well
recognizedbeyond the presentingorganizationand thereforecommensuratewith nationally or
internationallyrecognizedawardfor excellencein thefield.
Regardingthedocumentationsubmittedfor thecategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii),
all of the petitioner's submissionsweredeficient in multiple regulatoryrequirementssuchasnot
includinga date,not beingaboutthepetitioner,not includinga full Englishlanguagetranslation,
or not beingaccompaniedby evidencethat theywerepublishedin majortradepublicationsor
othermajor media. The petitionerhasfailed to submit publishedmaterialabouthim that is
indicative of or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaim or a level of expertiseindicatine that
heis oneof thatsmaNpercentagewho haverisento theverv topof thefield.
With regard to the documentationsubmittedfor the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the petitioner failed to demonstratethat the submitted evidenceequatedto
visual art exhibitionsor showcasesof his work. Regardless,noneof the documentaryevidence
submittedfor thisregulatorycriterionis indicative of or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaim
or a level of expertiseindicatingthatthepetitioner is oneof that small crcentagewho haverisen
to the very top of his field. The petitioner submitteda letter from indicating that he
and his partner, were part of a special tangogroup classthat
attendedfor adviceandinstructionaspartof herappearanceon ABC's "Dancing with the Stars"
televisionseries.TheMay 13.2008ABC "Dancingwith theStars"videoclip identifiedin
letter shows and visiting a danceclasstaughtby instructor
The tangogroupclassincludedfive or six otherprofessionaldancecouplesin
attendanceanddid not specificallyfocuson the petitioneror identify him by name. Thus,the
petitioner hasfailed to demonstratethat his involvement in the television episodegarneredhim
nationalor internationalacclaim. The petitioneralsosubmitteddocumentationindicating thathe
hasperformedat Vivo DancesportCenterevents(such as New Year's Eve celebrations),at a
political fundraiserfor CaliforniaStateSenator andat NSZZ"Solidarity" in Gdansk.
Poland. The petitioner failed to submit any documentationestablishingthat thesevenuesareof
sucha caliberthathis performancetherewasconsistentwith or indicativeof sustainednational
or international acclaim. For example, the petitioner failed to submit documentation
demonstratingthat his performancesaltractedunusuallylargeaudiences,garneredany critical
acclaim, received favorable press reviews, or otherwise drew a significant level of interest
commensuratewith nationalor internationalacclaimat thevery top of thefield.
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), thepetitionerhasnot establishedthat hehasperformedin a leadingor critical
role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.Thedocumentation
submittedby thepetitioneris not indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor a
level of expertiseindicating that heis oneof thatsmall percentagewho haverisento thevery top
of hisfield.
Regardingthecategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix),thedocumentationsubmitted
by the petitioner fails to demonstratethat his remunerationis "significantly high" in relation to
Page15
othersperforming similar work or that his level of compensationplaceshim amongthat small
percentagewho have risen to the very top of the field. The documentationsubmitted by ihe
petitioneris not indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor a level of expertise
indicatingthatheis oneof thatsmall percentagewho haverisento thevery top of his field.
In this matter,the petitionerhasnot establishedthat his achievementsat the time of filing were
commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimasa ballroomdancecompetitorand
teacher,and being amongthat small percentageat the very top of the field of endeavor. The
submittedevidenceis not indicative of a "careerof acclaimedwork in the field" ascontemplated
by Congress.H.R.Rep.No. 101-723,59 (Sept.19, 1990).TheconclusiontheAAO reachesby
consideringtheevidenceto meeteachcategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)separately
is consistentwith a review of the evidencein the aggregate.Ultimately,the evidencein the
aggregatedoesnot distinguishthe petitioneras oneof the small percentagewho hasrisento the
very top of the field of endeavor. SC.F.R. §204.5(h)(2). While the petitioner need not
demonstratethat thereis no onemoreaccomplishedthanhimself to qualify for theclassification
sought,it appearsthattheverytopof hisfield of endeavorisabovethelevelhehasattained.
D. Prior 0-1 NonimmigrantVisaStatus
The AAO notesthatthealien is thebeneficiaryof approved0-1 nonimmigrantvisa petitions for
an alien of extraordinary. Theseprior approvalsdo not precludeUSCIS from denyingan
immigrant visa petition basedon a different, if similarly phrasedstandard. Eachcasemust be
decidedon acase-by-casebasisuponreviewof theevidenceof record. It mustbe notedthat many
1-140immigraru petitions are deniedafter USCIS approvesprior nonimmigrantpetitions, See,
e.g..Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA USv. USDept. of'
Justice,48 F. Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999);FedinBrothersCo.Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103
(E.D.N.Y. 1989).BecauseUSCISspendslesstime reviewing1-129nonimmigrantpetitionsthan
1-140immigrantpetitions,somenonimmigrantpetitionsaresimplyapprovedin error. Q Data
Consulting,Inc. v.INS,293F.Supp.2dat29~30;seealsoTexasA&M Univ.v. Upchurch,99Fed.
Appx.556(5thCir. 2004)(findingthatprior approvalsdo not precludeUSCISfrom denyingan
extensionof theoriginal visabasedon a reassessmentof thealien's qualifications).
The AAO is not required to approveapplicationsor petitions where eligibility has not been
demonstrated,merclybecauseof prior approvalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matter of
ChurchScientologyInternational, 19I&N Dec. 593. 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurdto
suggestthat USClS or any agencymust treat acknowledgederrorsas binding precedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd.v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore.the AAO's authority over the service centersis comparableto the relationship
betweena courtof appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhasapproveda
nonimmigrantpetition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be boundto follow the
contradictorydecisionof aservicecenter.LouisianaPhilharmonicOrchestrav.INS,No.98-2855,
2000WI 282785,*1, *3 (E.D.La.),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir. 2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51
(200l).
Page 16
III. Conclusion
Reviewof the recorddoesnot establishthat the petitioner hasdistinguishedhimself to suchan
extentthat hemay be said to haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within the small percentageat the very top of his field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantly abovealmostall othersin his field at a nationalor
internationallevel. Therefore,the petitioner has not establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition maynot beapproved.
An applicationor petition that fails to comply with the technicalrequirementsof the law maybe
deniedby the AAO even if the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denial in
the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229 F. Supp.2d at 1043,
affd, 345F.3dat 683;seealsoSoltanev. DOJ,381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewon adenovobasis).
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial. In visa petition proceedings,theburdenof proving eligibility for
thebenefit soughtremainsentirely with the petitioner.Section291of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Here,thatburdenhasnot beenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.