dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

MATTER OF L-V-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2018 
CERTIFICATION OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a ballroom dance instructor, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition. Subsequently, the 
Director issued a "Decision," advising that the approval was not "clearly correct," moving to reopen 
and affording the Petitioner 30 days to rebut the bases of the motion. After receiving a response 
from the Petitioner, the Director revoked the approval of the petition, finding that it had been 
approved in error. The Petitioner appealed, asserting that she meets six of the ten regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and that the Director improperly reopened the proceeding. After 
review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director did not follow the 
revocation procedures set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2, and therefore remanded the proceeding back to 
the Director for issuance of a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). In addition, we directed the 
Director to consider whether the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's intent to continue working 
in her area of extraordinary ability, and to re-evaluate the evidence submitted under 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vii). The Petitioner submitted a brief in response to the NOIR, 
referencing the evidence submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). After 
review of the response, the Director issued a decision revoking the initial approval of the petitioner, 
and certifying the proceedings to the AAO as directed. To date, the Petitioner has not submitted a 
response to the certification notice. 
Upon review, we will deny the petition. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, 
Matter of L-V-B-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, 
and 
(iii)the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (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 (USCIS) 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 Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Since we did not receive a brief from the Petitioner in response to the 
notice of certification, we will consider the seven evidentiary criteria reviewed by the Director in her 
certification decision, and the entirety of the record. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner submitted two groups of awards in support of her claim under this criterion. First, she 
submitted several certificates earned by her students at ballroom dancing competitions. Many of 
2 
.
Matter of L-V-B-
these are team awards which do not name individual dancers, but only the Petitioner as the "team 
trainer." Others identify the team as and some are additionally supported by 
photographs of trophies. Still other certificates were awarded to specific dance couples, but identify 
the Petitioner as the "head" of the school. The certificates are also supported by a letter 
from President of the who lists 
33 certificates awarded to dancers under the Petitioner's training from 2000 to 2008. To the extent 
that the Petitioner is named on these certificates, they may be considered as an acknowledgement of 
her contribution as a dance instructor to the awards received by the dancers, but not as awards 
received by her. In addition, the evidence does not establish that these awards were nationally or 
internationally recognized. Although some of the competitions are described as being international, 
the inclusion of competitors from more than one country does not, by itself, connote national or 
international recognition. Without evidence of recognition beyond the competition itself, we do not 
find that these awards meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The record also includes copies of certificates awarded specifically to the Petitioner, supported by 
another letter from dated March 24, 2010. The first is a nomination as "Best teacher­
trainer of the year," given at the 2008" dance sport competition. An article which 
accompanies this certificate states that the Petitioner received the award, which it indicates "was 
taken and distributed throughout the Russian Federation." 
However, although a date, publication title and author are included at the bottom of this article, it is 
not a photocopy of printed material with page numbers, headers and other verifying indicators, nor is 
a website address included in the copy. Further, a handwritten website address, is 
not complete and could not be verified. Without evidence of publication or dissemination of the 
article, the veracity of its contents cannot be verified and it is of minimal probative value. 
Furthermore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner won this award, instead of just being 
nominated for it. A nomination for an award does not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
letter also names several other awards given to the Petitioner "for professionalism in 
preparation and development of dance couples." In support of this letter, the record includes three 
certificates issued by the that 
acknowledge her for "contestant's preparation" in three competitions in 2004, 2006 and 2007. These 
certificates are accompanied by a press release from the same committee that acknowledges the 
Petitioner's receipt of this award in 2007, with a handwritten website address that also could not be 
verified. This evidence is insufficient to establish that these awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized, or that they were awarded for excellence in the field of dance sport. 
In addition, while the Petitioner is acknowledged as the trainer of awarded dance couples in 
certificates granted at other competitions listed in letter, such as 
2008," she is not named as the recipient of these awards. As the plain language of this criterion 
states that the Petitioner must have received a qualifying award, she cannot meet this requirement 
based upon such certificates. 
Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
3 
.
Matter of L-V-B-
Documentation of the individual'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. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
In her response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner reiterated her claim to this criterion based 
upon her membership in the executive committee, or presidium, of the 
She submitted a copy of an identification card identifying her as a 
"Leading Specialist" of the . and a letter from the verifies that she was elected by 
vote to the presidium of leading specialists. The letter also explains the criteria by which candidates 
for the presidium are selected, which include work experience as a teacher/trainer, professional 
achievements, judging experience and letters of recommendation. Four of the eight listed criteria are 
based upon the total number of scored points in dance sport competitions, and thus are weighted 
more towards experience and activity than for outstanding achievement, and the final determination 
of membership is done by a vote. This evidence does not establish that outstanding achievements 
are required of the members of the presidium. In addition, the evidence does not establish that the 
auditing committee of the which selects candidates for the presidium, or the delegates 
who ultimately vote for members of the presidium, are composed of nationally or internationally 
recognized dance sport experts. Therefore, the record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted an article titled ' which was 
published in the newspaper Evening Petersburg on 2009. This article describes the 
Petitioner's career as a dance trainer, lists some of the same information as in the letters from 
regarding competition wins by her students, and does not name an author, instead stating 
that it was issued by the · =====---== Also, 
the Petitioner submitted a second article, titled ' 
which was published in Arguments of the Week 2008. 
While both of these articles are clearly about the Petitioner and her work as a dance trainer, the 
evidence submitted regarding the publications in which they appeared does not establish that they 
qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. Pages from Wikipedia 
about these newspapers, written in Russian, are accompanied by Google translations of the pages, 
together with translator's certifications that the Google translations are accurate. Regarding Evening 
Petersburg, the page indicates that the newspaper was established in 1917 as Evening Leningrad, but 
provides no further data such as circulation or readership which might substantiate its status as major 
media. The page about Arguments of the Week states that it has a circulation of 570,000, but no 
4 
.
Matter of L-V-B-
comparative evidence regarding other Russian newspapers was submitted. 1 In addition, as there are 
no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site, 
information from Wikipedia will be accorded no evidentiary weight. See Laamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008).2 
Because it has not been established that either of the newspapers in which articles about the 
petitioner were published qualify as major media, this criterion has not been met. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field 
204.5(h)(3)(v) 
athletic, or 
8 C.F.R. § 
The Petitioner highlighted the article from Arguments of the Week when claiming this criterion in her 
response to the Director's NOIR. This article, which lists the names of dance sport judges as its 
authors, describes aspects of the Petitioner's teaching method, including her use of established 
ballroom dance terminology, "biomechanics of the dance," and specialized exercises and training. 
However, this evidence does not indicate that her teaching method is an original contribution to 
dance sport, especially since it is described as being at least partially based upon existing standards. 
Further, while she may have employed these techniques with her own dance students to some degree 
of success, this article does not indicate that her teaching method has been adopted by other dance 
sport trainers, or has been widely disseminated to others in the dance sport community. 
Moreover, the Petitioner had previously based her claim to this criterion upon the certificates and 
press release mentioned above from the 
Although the Petitioner claimed that this evidence shows that she founded the 
competition, neither the certificates nor the press release support that claim. In addition, the 
evidence does not establish that, even if the Petitioner had shown that she founded this dance sport 
competition, that that would qualify as an original artistic or athletic contribution of major 
significance. 
1 In her response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner refers to this publication as Argumenty I Fakty (Arguments and 
Facts) and describes it as "the most popular Russian weekly edition with circulation close to 3 million." The evidence 
does not support these assertions, or any relationship between the two publications. 
2 See also the online content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: General_disclaimer, accessed on 
October 24, 2018,, and copy incorporated into the record of proceeding is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY . Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content 
of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion 
does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
5 
.
Matter of L-V-B-
Accordingly, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In her decision, the Director stated that this criterion was not met because the Petitioner did not 
submit properly certified translations of documents submitted in support of her claim. However, 
upon review, the translations of the documentation submitted in support of this criterion include all 
relevant portions of the evidence. The article from the 2008 edition of the magazine 
"Sobaka" describes the Petitioner's career as a dancer and dance teacher at the school, as 
well as her role as senior trainer. In addition, the letter from dated January 
18, 2009, confirms the Petitioner's leadership role for the school and describes her as "the face of 
our school." In addition, the record includes several awards received at regional and national dance 
sport competitions by individual dancers and dance groups from demonstrating that it 
enjoys a distinguished reputation in the Russian dance sport community. As such, the Petitioner has 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner states in her response to the Director's NOIR that she earned 910,754 rubles in 2007 
and 1,023,989 rubles in 2008 as a dance sport trainer. In support of her claim under this criterion, 
she submitted several documents intended to verify her earnings claim and establish an average 
salary in her field for purposes of comparison. However, the 2007 Russian Federation tax return she 
submitted is only partially translated, as is the evidence submitted from the 2008 edition of 
the magazine Social Security Questions, which includes a table showing the average monthly salary 
for dance teachers in The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3) states: 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English translation which the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Without a complete translation of these documents, we are unable to conduct an accurate analysis 
of their content. 
Also submitted under this criterion is an audit report of the Petitioner's earnings in 2006, 2007, and 
2008. The report repeats the Petitioner's claims for her earnings for 2007 and 2008, but indicates 
that her taxes were audited for only 2008. Further, the audit report does not provide a detailed 
breakdown of the sources of the Petitioner's earnings, rendering the data included of limited 
evidentiary value for purposes of comparison to others in the Petitioner's field. This is especially 
relevant since the translated portions of the Petitioner's 2007 tax return indicate that her earnings 
6 
.
Matter of L-V-B-
were broken down into her salary from , her income from "performing the private practice 
individual training with couples," and awards "received at the conducted competitions." 
In addition to the already mentioned audit report and 2008 article, several other sources of 
comparative salary information for dance teachers in Russia and more specifically, the St. Petersburg 
area, were submitted. However, this evidence is inconsistent in its scope and unclear in its 
methodology. The audit report states, citing an unnamed "database on tax declarations of physical 
persons of the Russian Federation," that average total annual earnings for ballroom dance teachers in 
is between 190,000 and 249,000 rubles. Also submitted was a webpage and chart 
from the Federal State Statistic Service of the Russian Federation dated October 31, 2011, showing 
that in 2008, workers in education in Russia earned a monthly salary of 11,316 rubles, or more than 
135,000 rubles annually. However, this data is not sufficiently specific to the Petitioner's location 
and position, and is therefore not relevant for purposes of comparison. A second table titled 
"Average salary in Russia in 2007-2008" also provides data which is too broad in scope to provide a 
comparison to the Petitioner's claimed figures. 
Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation with 
different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. Rather, the petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his/her occupation performing similar work at the 
top level of the field. See Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) 
(considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). We note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 
153319 at *1 , *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is 
not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of 
play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. 
This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson 
v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 
60898-99. 
Finally, a letter from deputy of the 
for the city of indicates that as of 2010, the average monthly salary for a ballroom dance 
teacher is 20,450 rubles, or approximately 245,000 rubles on an annual basis. While this is 
comparable to the data provided in the audit report, it is not clear whether these figures include all 
sources of income, or only base salary from a particular employer. Since the translated portions of 
the Petitioner's 2007 tax return indicate that multiple sources of income were combined to calculate 
her total earnings, it is not apparent that the figures provided in the return or in the audit report can 
be compared with the comparative figures described above. 
"7 
Matter of L-V-B-
Based on the above, the evidence does not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized 
award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety, concluding that it does not support a finding that she 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. For these reasons, 
the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
ORDER: The petition is denied. 
Cite as Matter of L-V-B-, ID# 1668665 (AAO Oct. 31, 2018) 
8