dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 2, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a ballroom dancer and instructor, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. Specifically, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the regulatory criteria, of which a Petitioner must meet at 
least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief stating that she meets at least one additional criterion. 
Upon de novo 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, 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-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 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. USCJS, 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&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 prciven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. • 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a ballroom dancer who participates in competitions and events in the United States 
and Europe and instructs students in her local area. As the Petitioner has not indicated or established 
that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) based 
on her first place finish at the 2015 her first place 
finish at the 2009 and her second place finish at the 2008 
In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) based on her participation at the 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-
m Connecticut. The Petitioner has also 
demonstrated that her performances meet the criterion for display at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). For instance, the Petitioner performed as part of a dancing tour 
with at the in Connecticut. Accordingly , she 
has met at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, making her one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. In a final merits determination, we analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh 
the totality of the evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We will consider all of the Petitioner ' s 
evidence, including documentation submitted under the three prongs that she met as well as 
documentation submitted under additional prongs. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner 
has not shown her eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has successfully competed at national and international 
dancesport championships. As previously discussed, the Petitioner placed first at the 2015 
and the 2009 
as well as second at the 2008 
documented her second place finish at the 20 12 
finish at the 20 12 
The Petitioner also 
third place 
and first place finish at the 2009 
Although the Petitioner has received nationally 
or internationally recognized dancesport awards, she did not demonstrate that such achievements 
have garnered her sustained national or international acclaim and a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner documented her 
membership with the and the 
The Petitioner's evidence, however, does not demonstrate that outstanding achievements 
are required for membership with or Instead, the documentation indicates that 
individuals are able to register with as opposed to being granted membership based on 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Regarding 
although the registration requirements provide fpr minimum standards such as residency , 
education (adjudicators), and competition experience (national judges), they are not indicative of 
expertly evaluated outstanding achievements. With regard to the evidence reflects full and 
1 The Petitioner indicated that" she won additional dancing awards ; however , she did not· document the record of 
proceedings . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-
probationary membership requirements for organizations who wish to join the such as proof 
of existence and length of service, rather than the membership requirements for individuals. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that the membership requirements are tantamount to 
outstanding achievements, ,so as to reflect that "her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner offered 
various materials that mention her as a competitor but are not published material about her. 
Specifically, the screenshots and articles simply list the Petitioner's finishes along with the 
placements of the other dancers at competitions. Furthermore, the evidence mostly contains 
photographs of the Petitioner with captions reflecting advertisements for shows instead of published 
material discussing her work. In addition, the Petitioner presented blurbs for dance shows in local 
publications such as the 
and rather than articles that 
feature her in professional or 
major trade publications or 6ther major media. The record does contain a 2012 article from 
the that was indicative of published material about the Petitioner relating to her 
work; however, the Petitioner did not establish that the is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. Nevertheless, a single article published approximately 
three years prior to the filing of the petition is not consistent with the sustained national or 
international acclaim for this highly restrictive classification. 
In regards to the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner established that at 
time of the filing of her petition, she judged dancers from studios in the northeastern region of the 
United States in the m 
Connecticut in 2015. In addition, the Petitioner served as a judge at the 
in New York in 2014. An evaluation of the significance of the 
Petitioner's judging experience is acceptable under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11, to determine if 
such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive 
classification. Without evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from others in her field, such as 
evidence that she has served as a judge of acclaimed ballroom dancers or of a prestigious national or 
international competition rather than students or amateurs at local dance studios, the record does not 
demonstrate that she "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen tb the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Under the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the 
Petitioner discussed her education credentials from and 
referred to a letter from national examiner for as evidence of her combined 
skills as a dancer and trainer. Although states that the Petitioner "is most highly 
trained in all four styles of ballroom dancing," she did not explain how she has used her training to 
influence the ballroom dancing or dancesport field in a significant way. Having a diverse skill set is 
not a contribution of major significance in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by 
evidence that the Petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact the field, so as to 
demonstrate original contributions of major significance. In addition, indicates that 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-
she is personally training the Petitioner to hopefully become a and examiner, and that 
"[s]he would be a great asset to our industry." Given the descriptions in terms of future applicability 
and determinations that may occur at a later date, the actual impact on the field has yet to be 
determined. The Petitioner did not establish how her current training to become a and 
examiner has been of major significance in the field or how the evidence under this criterion shows 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Moreover, the Petitioner indicated that she has taught three students who have won various 
dancesport competitions. The record indicates that her students have won competitions, such as the 
2015 The Petitioner, however, has not 
demonstrated how those awards are original contributions of major significance to the field; rather 
the record indicates that the Petitioner's teaching and impact were limited to her students. The 
Petitioner did not show that "her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the 
Petitioner indicated that she wrote two treatises regarding the teaching of dancesport that were 
published by universities in Russia. The Petitioner presented an uncertified English language 
translation for the first page of a document entitled, ' but 
did not submit a full, English language translation for the remaining parts. In addition, the Petitioner 
submitted an uncertified translation of a cover page entitled, 
without providing a copy and translation of the entire document. Scholarly 
articles are generally written by and for experts in a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and 
contain references to sources used in the articles. Because she did not provide full and certified 
translations, the submitted articles have diminished probative value. 2 The Petitioner did not show 
that her papers were peer-reviewed, contain any references to sources, or were otherwise considered 
"scholarly," and she did not demonstrate that her work was published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. Regardless, the record does not contain documentary evidence 
reflecting the citation of her papers. Citation history or other evidence of the impact of the 
petitioner's articles is often evaluated when determining significance to the field. For example, 
numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner would provide solid 
evidence that others have been influenced by her work and are familiar with it. Such an analysis at 
the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 1122. On the 
other hand, few or no citations of an article authored her may indicate that her work has gone largely 
unnoticed by his field. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her papers have attracted a level 
of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 
As noted above, the Petitioner· provided evidence satisfying the display criterion under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). As it is expected that a dancer, such as the Petitioner, would perform in a dance 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that any foreign language document must accompanied by a full 
English language 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. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-
setting at festivals, exhibitions, and other events, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of 
her work is reflective of acclaim consistent with this highly restrictive classification. The record 
reflects that the Petitioner has performed at local exhibitions, including venues such as the 
m Connecticut; in 
Connecticut; and in New York. The Petitioner did not 
establish that these are considered prestigious or popular venues, or that her exhibitions garnered 
attention in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Further, the 
petitioner did not demonstrate that her performances brought praise from critics, drew record 
crowds, or raised attendance. Without evidence distinguishing the Petitioner's shows from others in 
her field, she has not shown that she "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In summary, the Petitioner's achievements in the aggregate confirm that she is a talented dancer. 
She has performed in front of audiences, received awards, and judged other dancers. Her 
achievements, however, do not demonstrate that she has sustained national or international acclaim 
or that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
\ 
We note the record of proceedings 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 I -140 immigrant petitions are denied after USC IS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g. , QData Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the 
office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. A review of the record in the aggregate does not confirm that she has 
distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. She, therefore, 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
6 
Matter of A-T-
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-, ID# 10139 (AAO Nov. 2, 2016)