dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 16, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a ballroom dancer and teacher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 53(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets five criteria. He argues that the documentation 
contained in the record established eligibility for the benefit sought. With his appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. - An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, 
or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
Matter of K-T-
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material ifhe or she is able to demonstrate that 
the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W .D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a competitive ballroom (dance sport) dancer and teacher who has participated in 
national and international competitions and worked as a dance instructor and coach. As the Petitioner 
has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at 
least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As noted previously, the Director found 
that the Petitioner had not met any of the listed criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets 
the following criteria: awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); original contributions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Upon review of all of the 
evidence, we conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the requirements of 
at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of K-T-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner provided evidence demonstrating that he won first place in several events at Latvian 
national chamronship competitions held between 2011 and 2016, including thd I 2015 
and I 2014 championships in D In addition, the record includes documentation such as 
media coverage and expert letters indicating the national recognition of awards from these 
competitions. Accordingly, the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thefieldfor which class[fication 
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). 
The Petitioner contends that his membership in the World Dancesport Federation (WDSF) and the 
National Dance Council of America (NDCA) meets this criterion. Concerning his WDSF 
membership, the Petitioner states that it is the "governing body for all dance sport competitions and 
athletes ... including the [LDSF,]" participation in "WDSF competitions requires membership in a 
member federation organization" and per WDSF rules, "WDSF competitions must include all levels 
of youth and juvenile dancers." According to the Petitioner, "[t]hus, exceptional championship 
dancers compete with outstanding success on national and international levels throughout their school 
years." Similarly, the Petitioner contends that membership in the NDCA requires "dancers to meet 
strict qualifications that are based on training, certification and experience." The submitted 
documentation, including the WDSF statutes and a brief excerpt from the NDCA rules and regulations, 
does not demonstrate that either association requires "outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts." The Petitioner therefore has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner alternately asserts that his membership on the Latvianl I team within the Latvian 
DanceSport Federation (LDSF) should be accepted under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) as "comparable" to 
the evidence required under this criterion. As support, he cites to an example listed in a U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy memo. 1 However, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation 
such that he is eligible to meet the initial evidentiary requirements through comparable evidence. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). As explained in the cited memo, general assertions that any of the ten criteria 
do not readily apply are not probative, and a petitioner should instead explain why it has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not established the comparable nature of his team membership. As he 
notes, the memo provides as an example that"[ e ]lection to a national all-star or Olympic team might 
serve as comparable evidence for evidence of memberships in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)." The Petitioner 
1 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 12 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P o licyManual.html. 
3 
Matter of K-T-
asserts that "all the members of such teams are selected for outstanding achievements." However, 
while submitted letters confirm the Petitioner's membership on the LDSFI lteam, they do not 
provide sufficient information, nor does the record include documentary evidence, regarding the 
team's membership requirements or selection process to show that it is truly comparable to 
membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as claimed. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classtfication 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). 
We note that the Director's decision includes conflicting statements about the evidence submitted 
under this criterion. The decision first states that the Petitioner submitted articles about himself 
relating to his work, but no probative evidence regarding the qualifying nature of the publications. It 
then states without explanation that the Petitioner provided documentation "that the media is major 
trade publications," but concludes that the published material is not about him. As explained below, 
upon de nova review of the record, we find the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner provided articles from various publications, such as the Diena newspaper and various 
websites includin tvnet.lv/a ollo.lv and s ortacentrs.com. While one of the Diena articles 
.__ ____ _. 'is about the Petitioner, none of the articles from this publication included an author, as 
required. Similarly, many of the website articles, including those from www.delfi.lv, unity.Iv, and 
sieviesuklubs.lv, did not identify the author and were not specifically about the Petitioner. Rather, 
they were about events in which he artici ated onl briefl mentionin him as a competitor. For 
example, the article.__ ________________________ ~ notes that the 
Petitioner will participate in the competition along with dancers from "more than 40 states around the 
world." 
The record does include two articles that are about the Petitioner and identify the author: 
2015 article from 
.__ _________________ _. 2014 article from tvnet.lv/apollo.lv. However, the 
Petitioner has not provided consistent or sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that either 
of these articles appeared in qualifying publications. The record includes printouts from Gemius, an 
internet research and consulting company, indicating that tvnet.lv/apollo.lv was the third-ranked 
internet site in Latvia for the month of May 2016. In contrast, submitted printouts from Alexa Internet, 
a data analytics company, noted this site was ranked 17th in Latvia based on website visitors and page 
views. 2 Gemius also noted that, in May 2016, sportacentrs.com was ranked 22nd in Latvia, while 
documentation from Wikipedia indicates that sportacentrs.com was ranked 41 st in Latvia. 3 Without 
2 A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho. 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
3 We note that Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the 
4 
Matter of K-T-
further information clarifying the rankings of these websites and documentation regarding the 
significance of the figures noted above, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that they are 
qualifying publications that constitute professional or major trade publications or forms of major 
media. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish not only that 
he has made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
As evidence that he meets this criterion, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters. The 
documentation includes a letter from I ,I the general secretary of Latvian sport 
dance professional federation, and~-------- a dance sport club owner. ~----~ 
stated that she is "one of the persons who brought Pro/Am 4 dancing to Latvia." She indicated the 
Petitioner was her "inspiration" and she "pioneered this dance category" with him. I I 
stated that the Petitioner is a "brilliant teacher" and he made a "major impact on our success to become 
a highly regarded brand inl 1 ILatvia." I I indicated the Petitioner "spearheaded 
the development of a systematic and innovative teaching method that is currently being used to shape 
the next generation dancers" and he "has a deep understanding of dancing and an amazing ability to 
teach and inspire the students[.]" 
Letters from experts may add value if they specifically articulate how a petitioner's original 
contributions are of major significance and what impact they had on subsequent work, while letters 
that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 5 Here, the letters commend the 
Petitioner's abilities, but they do not explain how he has made original contributions to the field that 
have been of major significance. Furthermore, the record does not contain sufficient information with 
corroborating documentation to support I I assertions regarding the Petitioner's 
pioneering work to bring Pro/ Am dancing to Latvia and the significance that this dance category has 
had since its introduction to the country. Similarly, I I assertion that the Petitioner has 
developed an innovating teaching method that is shaping the next generation of dancers is not 
sufficient to meet the criterion because the record does not contain adequate information or 
documentation to demonstrate the impact of his teaching method and extent of its use. After review, 
the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; 
see also Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
4 The Petitioner has explained that Pro/Am is a competition division in which professional dancers compete as pa11ners 
with their amateur students. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 
Matter of K-T-
Evidence that the alien 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). 
The Petitioner contends that he qualifies for this criterion based on his experience as captain of the 
I lfrom 2012 to 2016, which he claims was a leading role for the organization LDSF, and 
as the head coach of the dance sport club I I from 2010 to 2016, which he asserts was both 
leading and critical for the club. As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a 
petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role 
is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role 
that determines whether the role is or was critical. 7 
Concerning the Petitioner's claim that he performed a leading role for LDSF, he refers to letters from 
various individuals, including the LDSF general secretary,! l and I I 
an adjudicator with WDSDF. I !indicated, for example, that he "greatly contributed to the 
success of th team due to his uni ue teaching abilities and methodology."! I stated 
that the Petitioner and.__ _________ _. have led and trained "thel Hancesport team 
of Latvia in international formation competitions" and they "have been and continued to be a driving 
force of dancesport and dancesport training in Latvia." However, the record lacks sufficient 
information and documentation to support the Petitioner's claim that his experience as captain of the 
I I qualifies as a leading role for "the whole [LDSF], since one of the main purposes of this 
distinguished organization is to organize participation of its members, competitive dancers in the 
international tournaments." Further, the submitted letters do not contain detailed and probative 
information that specifically addresses how the Petitioner's experience qualifies as a leading role with 
LDSF. 8 In addition, while the Petitioner presented general information about LDSF, including 
printouts from its website and details regarding its officials and 2016 champions, he did not 
demonstrate that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
I d t his assertion on appeal that he "has played [a] leading, starring and critical role" for the 
dance sport club in Latvia, the Petitioner refers to two letters from the club owner, D 
He stated that the Petitioner was the captain of the Latvianl I and the club 
head coach (2010-2016), that "he has become truly representative of my club," and that he "attracted 
many new clients and became a role model and coach[.]" However, the Petitioner has not provided 
specific, detailed information or supporting documentation to demonstrate how his contributions led 
to the success of the organization to demonstrate the critical nature of his role. While he has shown 
that his position as head coach of the club constituted a leading role for the organization, he has not 
adequately documented the organization's reputation. Specifically, though the Petitioner provided 
printouts regarding the club's activities, including its experience as the organizer for and participation 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
6 
Matter of K-T-
in international dance sport events, and he asserts thatl I is the "best dance club in Latvia," 
owned by "probably the most notable figure in Latvian Dance Sport," he did not provide sufficient 
corroborative documentation to establish that the organization has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
In addition, we note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification 
reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USC IS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if 
a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not 
bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has failed to submit the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to folly address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20.9 Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for 
the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 
25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-T-, ID# 2337178 (AAO May 16, 2019) 
9 In addition. as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. we 
need not determine whether his intended teaching work constitutes coming to ·'continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability" under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii). See also USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM), ch. 22.22(i)(l)(C). 
7