dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE:MAR 3 0 2012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on April 8, 2010. The director dismissed the petitioner's motion to 
reconsider on July 13, 2010, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal.! The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability.2 Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary 
ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or 
international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See 
section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim 
through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. 
Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least 
three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
At the initial filing of the petition, prior counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility based on her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
204.5(h)(3), and the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8), counsel continued to claim the petitioner's eligibility for her receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, as well as the petitioner's eligibility for the awards criterion, the 
membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and the judging 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, in the director's 
decision, she only discussed the petitioner's eligibility for the one-time achievement and the awards 
criterion and determined that no further documentation was submitted for any of the other criteria 
including the membership criterion and the judging criterion. Although the petitioner does not 
contest the decision of the director for these criteria, the AAO will review the record of proceeding 
to determine if the petitioner meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (iv). See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
ajj'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
1. INTENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES 
1 The AAO notes that Fonn 1-290, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was filed and signed by the petitioner. Although the 
petitioner was represented by regarding her Fonn 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
there is no evidence that •••• is involved with the filing of this appeal. Moreover, the appeal was not filed 
with a new and properly executed Fonn G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, as 
required pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a). As such,_is not recognized as the attorney of 
record for this proceeding. 
2 According to infonnation on Fonn 1-140, the petitioner was last admitted to the United States on April 4, 2009 as a 
B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
-Page 3 
At the initial filing of the petition, counsel stated in her accompanying cover letter that the petitioner 
was seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability "based on her credentials and 
experience as a world class competitive ballroom dancer." In addition, the petitioner submitted 
documentation that was based solely on her accomplishments as a competitive ballroom dancer. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner failed to complete Parts 5 and 6 of Form 1-140 regarding the 
petitioner's occupation and proposed employment. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] has already gained recognition and respect in the ballroom dance 
community in the United States. She competes in international competitions for the 
United States name, and has won many first place awards. She also works as an 
instructor in a dance studio and pays taxes based on her earning. Further, due to her 
in-demand status she has created a business in her name and trains competitive 
ballroom dancers privately which she hopes to expand in the coming years. 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted an employment confirmation letter from 
••••••••••• who stated that the petitioner has been employed since October 10, 
2009, as a "dance coach/instructor." Moreover, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence 
reflecting that the petitioner started a dance school entitled, on October 
10, 2009. The AAO notes that the petitioner filed the employment- petition on 
September 23,2009. 
In the director's decision dismissing the petitioner's motion, she stated that "[t]he fact that the 
petitioner has trained young dancers is notable, but not considered as evidence in support of the 
petition as the petitioner is seeking permanent residence as a ballroom dancer and not a trainer or 
coach." On appeal, the petitioner claims that ''the evidence ... should as well be reviewed as an 
extraordinary skill level, given that only a person with such extraordinary ability can produce 
champions for USA at such young age and such short time span." 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained 
and that she seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a ballroom dancer or competitor and ballroom instructor or coach 
share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, ballroom 
competition and ballroom instruction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has 
been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary 
ability" as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, 
not necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary 
ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all 
positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Page 4 
!d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a ballroom instructor. While the AAO acknowledges the possibility of an alien's 
extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as a ballroom dancer and ballroom coach, the 
petitioner, however, must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United 
States to continue work in the area of expertise." See the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
Although the petitioner intends to compete and instruct in the United States, the petitioner must 
satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) through her achievements as a ballroom dancer. 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(l) 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 5t Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe field of 
endeavor. Id; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
Page 5 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the u.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.3 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. One-Time Achievement 
The petitioner claims that she meets the one-time achievement 
§ 204.5(h)(3) based on her first place finish at the 2009 in 
the amateur adult - under 21 - Latin Championship category. The petitioner submitted screenshots 
from www.embassyball.com that reflected photographs from the 2008 
_ and general information, announcements, and a list of the 2010 judges. Moreover, 
the petitioner submitted an article entitled, "Dance Championships Bring the World's Best to 
Irvine," dated August 28,2007, by review of the 
article refers to the ] only 'grand 
slam' competition that gives awards to both 
amateur and professional dancers." 
3 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. Given that the House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards 
which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, 
and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this 
legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized 
award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by 
Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, 
is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. 
While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement 
without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the 
award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top 
awards in that field. Although an award garnered by a professional at the 
may be considered as a lesser nationally recognized award pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to 
demonstrate that such award is a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets the one-time 
achievement pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence reflecting that she minimally meets the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields. 
4 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that in response to the director's request for additional 
claimed the' for this criterion based on her membership with 
The petitioner submitted. a letter from 
who stated that the petitioner "is a respected regsistrant" whose 
"skills are outstanding." In addition, the petitioner submitted screenshots from 
www.embassyball.com reflecting the_rules for competitions. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[ d]ocumentation of the 
alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in an association 
meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as 
an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on 
employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, 
grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do 
not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership 
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
While the petitioner established that she is a member of_ she failed to demonstrate that 
membership with requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. A review of the screenshots simply reflects the rules 
for competitions, such as the age categories, proficiency classifications, and dress and costume 
requirements. However, the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to reflect the 
membership requirements of_ so as to establish that outstanding requirements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, are required for membership with _ 
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to establish that her membership with _ meets the 
elements of this criterion, which she has not, section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act requires the 
submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires membership in more than one association. 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel 
or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, 
it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience 
must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
ChertofJ, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). In the 
case here, the petitioner claimed eligibility based on only one association. 
Page 8 
The petitioner cannot meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) by 
simply submitting documentary evidence reflecting her membership with an association. It is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element of this criterion. In this case, the 
petitioner failed to establish that her single membership requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
class~fication is sought. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, counsel claimed that the petitioner "has been licensed by the •••• 
The submitted a letter from 
[The petitioner] has been through the according studies, has passed the according 
and was assessed at the first time as 
and 
The AAO notes that a review ofth~ by ~fails to su,pport his claims 
that the petitioner is licensed as a ......-or competitor. Regardless, •••••• 
offers no other information to demonstrate that being an "adjudicator" equates to participation as a 
judge of the work of others consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that 
the petitioner has served as "a judge of the work of others." Serving as an instructor or coach as part 
of one's job duties does not equate to participation as ajudge of the work of others in the field. The 
phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually 
as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read 
to include every informal instance of teaching in a classroom setting or coaching of athletes and 
performing artists. 
In stark contrast, the AAO notes that in support of the 
petitioner submitted a screenshot from www.embassyball.com 
5 See http://www.wdcdance.comlindex.php?set reg type ID=2. Accessed on March 20, 2012, and incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
6 See http://www.wdcdance.com/index.php?set lastname letter=K. Accessed on March 20, 2012, and incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
Page 9 
competition. Clearly, these individuals served as a judge of the work of others; specifically a dance 
sport competition, as opposed to the petitioner who claims to have taught and coached students. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she has served as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought 
consistent with the plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 7 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
7 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145. 
In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the 
office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the 
Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DRS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding 
that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
-Page 10 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.