dismissed EB-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

identifvbg <lata deleted to 
prevent cle~"dy unwm:rante{) 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAY 17 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Oepartment of Homeland Securit} 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals OITicc (A/\O) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 209() 
Washim!ton. DC 2052()·2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 100.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
·i'C 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, 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. § l1S3(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary as a ballroom dance trainer. 1 The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of 
her sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's 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 of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective 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. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner has satisfied at least five categories of evidence "to 
show that she is an extraordinary individual." More specifically, counsel asserts that the petitioner 
meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), (viii), and (ix). 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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, 
I According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted 
to the United States on August 19,2009 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
Page 3 
(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 (USerS) 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" 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 of the 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 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. 2(10). 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? 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." Id. 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. 
2 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 4 
II. INTENT TO CONTINUE WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE IN THE U.S. 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of 
expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, in Part 5, the petitioner lists her as "Dance Teacher." The 
submitted a December 29, 2009 letter from 
Academy, stating: "We are happy and excited to offer employment for [the petitioner]. ... We 
are in the process of structuring her classes. Her main work is in training individual dancers for 
dance competitions, instead of teaching mass group classes." Thus, the record is clear that the 
petitioner intends to continue to work in the area of dance training and teaching in the United 
States. 
In addition to documentation establishing the petitioner's intention to continue to work in the 
United States as a dance trainer, the petitioner submitted documentation pertaining to her athletic 
achievements as a ballroom dance competitor in the 1980s. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner has competed nationally or internationally as a ballroom dancer since 
that time period. While a competitive dancer and a dance trainer may share knowledge of 
ballroom dancing, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive dancing 
and dance instruction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in 
Federal Court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 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,_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. 
[d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the record demonstrates that the 
petitioner intends to continue working as a dance trainer, there is no evidence indicating that she 
intends to compete as ballroom dancer in the United States. The AAO acknowledges the 
possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as teaching and 
competitive dancing, but the petitioner must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is 
coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
In this case, there is no documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner intends to continue 
working in the United States as a competitive ballroom dancer. Accordingly, the petitioner must 
satisfy the statutory requirement at section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act as well as the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3) through her achievements as a dance teacher and trainer. 
USCIS recognizes that there exists a nexus between competing and teaching in a given sport. To 
assume that every extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes teaching, however, would be 
too speCUlative. To resolve this issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the 
evidence of record. Specifically, in a case where an alien has achieved recent national or 
international acclaim as a competitive athlete and has sustained that acclaim in training top 
competitors at a national level, the AAO can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an 
Page 5 
overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that the AAO can conclude that 
conducting dance training is within the alien's area of expertise. However, as the petitioner in the 
present matter has had an extended period of time to establish her reputation as a dance trainer 
beyond the years in which she competed as ballroom dancer in 1980s, the petitioner must 
demonstrate her extraordinary ability as a dance trainer. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted certificates indicating that as a competitive ballroom dancer she was 
awarded first place in the '''Dance kaleidoscope 88' Class 'C' National Program," second place in 
the '''Dance kaleidoscope 88' Class 'C' European Program," second place in the "'Dance 
kaleidoscope 88' Class 'c' Latin Program," second place in the '''Leningradskaya spring-88' ... 
class 'C' ... National program," and first place in "Class C" of "'The Rhythm of Friendship '88'" 
competition. There is no supporting documentary evidence demonstrating that the preceding Class 
"c" award certificates from the 1980s are "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes or 
awards for excellence in competitive ballroom dancing. Regardless, the "field of endeavor" for 
which classification is sought is dance teaching and training. There is no evidence indicating that 
the petitioner seeks to work in the United States as a competitive ballroom dancer. Awards 
resulting from the petitioner's success as a dance competitor cannot be considered evidence of her 
national or international recognition as a dance teacher or trainer. As previously discussed, the 
statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of expertise 
in the United States. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(ii); 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See also Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, awards won 
by the petitioner as a ballroom dancer in national or international competitions do not meet the 
elements of this regulatory criterion for purposes of establishing her extraordinary ability as a dance 
trainer. 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. A December 07, 2008 certificate from the Committee of Cultural Administration of 
Municipal Education in the City of Gatchina for providing "a significant contribution 
to the development of the cultural and leisure activity" in the city; 
2. A January 7, 2007 certificate and a trophy from the Committee of Physical Culture 
and Sport of Saint Petersburg for having prepared contestants for "the Open 
Competition in Ballroom Sport Dance" at the "Rising Stars 2006" contest; 
-j On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
3. A January 10, 2008 certificate from the Committee of Physical Culture and Sport of 
Saint Petersburg for having prepared contestants for "the Open Competition in 
Ballroom Sport Dance" at the "Rising Stars 200T' contest; 
4. A December 17, 2007 Diploma awarded to the petitioner by the Dance Sport 
Federation of Leningrad Region for "active participation in training" of "Beginner" 
dance couples for the "Christmas Souvenir" ballroom competition; 
5. A certificate and trophy from the Dance Sport Federation of the Republic of Komi for 
"active participation in training of children and youth dance couples" who competed 
at the "Russian Student Ball 2007" competition, awarded by the Dance Sport 
Federation of the Republic of Komi; 
6. A Diploma and trophy awarded to the petitioner for mentoring the dance ensemble 
"Olympia" which took lSI place in the Latin Program of the "Polar Ball" Open 
International Competition (2002); 
7. An award from the Public School of Ballroom Sport Dance "Olympia" for "a 
significant contribution by the mentoring of dance couples and children-youth 
ensembles of 'Olympia' 2006-2007"; 
8. An award from the Public School of Ballroom Sport Dance "Olympia" for "a 
significant personal contribution by the mentoring of dance couples and children­
youth ensembles of 'Olympia' 2008-2009"; 
9. A January 14, 2005 certificate from the Committee of Physical Culture and Sport of 
Saint Petersburg for having prepared contestants for "the Open Competition in 
Ballroom Sport Dance" at the "Rising Stars 2004" contest; 
10. Award from the Head of the Administration of Municipal Education of the City 
Gatchina to the petitioner for her active participation in conducting festivities 
dedicated to the 210lh anniversary celebration of the City of Gatchina; 
11. A December 23, 2008 certificate of gratitude from the Public School of Ballroom 
Sport Dance "Olympia" to the petitioner for "her personal contribution to the District 
and Regional Development of Sport Dance of Russian Federation Years 2007-2008"; 
12. A December 27, 2005 award certificate from the Committee of Cultural Municipal 
Education of the City of Gatchina given to the petitioner for providing "a contribution 
to the development of dance art" as a trainer for the "Olympia" dance school. 
13. A December 27, 2003 Diploma awarded to "Children's ensemble 'Olympia' Group 
'Children - 2' for I sl Place among children's ensembles in Latin Program" at the 
Leningrad Region "Christmas Souvenir" competition; 
14. A January 7, 2004 Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" children's ensemble for "lsI 
Place in Latin and Arbitrary Program Group 'Children I'" at the "Rising Stars 2004" 
"regional competition of ballroom sport dance"; 
15. A Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" children's ensemble for "I sl Place in Latin and 
Arbitrary Program Group 'Children I'" at the "Rising Stars 2004" "regional 
competition of ballroom sport dance"; 
16. A Diploma presented to the petitioner as leader of the "Children - I" team for the 
"Olympia" dance school for achieving I 51 place in the team competition in the 
"Children - I" category of the Latin Program "Class E" at the "Cup of CIS" 
(Commonwealth of Independent States) competition (2003); 
Page 7 
17. A May 10, 2003 Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" children's ensemble for 
achieving 1st Place among ensembles in the Latin Program at the XII Open 
Championship of Arhangeisk Region, "The Mayor's Cup of Arhangelsk"; 
18. A Diploma stating that "Sport Dance Club Olympia" was a "Nominee" for the 
"Eksersis" national award "for high achievements in a Sport Dance in 2004"; 
19. An April 29, 2008 Diploma from the Head of the Department of Culture in the City 
of Gatchina presented to the "Olympia" dance ensemble for its participation as a 
contestant in the "We are born for inspiration" gala-concert; 
20. An April 12, 2009 Diploma from the City of Gatchina presented to the "Olympia" 
dance ensemble and the petitioner for participating in the "Rain of Stars 2009" 
charitable event; 
21. A Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" Children's Ensemble for 1st place in the Latin 
Program at the "Cup of Sport Dance Center 'Zenit'" (2004); 
22. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the Latin 
Program, Class "c" at the "Petersburg Ball - 2007"; 
23. A December 17,2007 Diploma awarded to the petitioner's student for 1st place in the 
"Beginners" group at the "Christmas Souvenir" ballroom competition; 
24. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Children-l 
Class 'E'" group at the "Dancing Spring - 2006" ballroom competition; 
25. A Diploma from the Dance Sport Federation of the Republic of Komi awarded to two 
of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "8 Dances" program at the "Russian 
Student Ball - 2007" competition; 
26. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the Latin 
Program at the "Governor's Cup of the City of Perm 'Crystal Slipper - 2008'" 
ballroom competition; 
27. A December 17, 2007 Diploma awarded to the petitioner's student for 1st place in the 
"Beginners" group at the "Christmas Souvenir" ballroom competition; 
28. A Diploma from the Dance Sport Federation of Saint Petersburg awarded to two of 
the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Children-2" program at the "Nevskiy 
Cup - 2005" ballroom competition; 
29. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Latin 
Program Class C" at the "Legends of the Sport Dance" (2007) ballroom competition; 
30. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for I st place in the "Children-
2" category at the "Rating-Competition of the Dance Sport Federation of Saint 
Petersburg" (April 2008); 
31. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "European 
Juniors-I" program at the "Peter the Greatest" competition (February 2008); 
32. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Latin 
Dance" program of the "Peter's Cup - 2008" ballroom competition (November 20(8); 
33. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Juniors-2" 
European Program at the "Winter Pattern - 2008" ballroom competition; 
34. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Juniors-I" 
group in the Latin Program at the "Rising Stars 2006" regional ballroom 
competition; 
Page 8 
35. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for I st place in the "Latin 
Program Class C-\3" at the "Rising Stars 200T' regional ballroom competition; 
36. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "'Youth' 8 
Dances, Class 0" category at the Rating-Competition of the Dance Sport Federation 
of Saint Petersburg" (April 2008); 
37. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Children-
2" "8 Dances" program at the "Legends of Sport Dance" ballroom competition (April 
2007); 
38. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Juniors-
2" Latin Program at the "Winter Pattern - 2008" ballroom competition; 
39. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Youth" 
group, "8 Dances," "0 Class" category at the "Winter Pattern - 2008" ballroom 
competition; and 
40. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Juniors­
I" Latin Program at the "Legends of Sport Dance" ballroom competition (April 
2(07). 
Items 1 - 5, 7 - 15, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 34 - 36, reflect local, regional, or institutional 
recognition rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. With regard to the Diploma stating that "Sport Dance Club Olympia" was 
a "Nominee" for the "Eksersis" national award "for high achievements in a Sport Dance in 
2004" (item 18), earning a nomination does not equate to receipt of a prize or an award. Further, 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner herself received an Eksersis award or nomination 
for her excellence as a dance trainer. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
evidence of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized "prizes or awards" 
for excellence in the field of endeavor, not her dance school's receipt of a nomination. Finally, 
regarding items 1 - 40, the petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international 
recognition of the awards, such as national or widespread local coverage of the awards in dance 
publications or sports media. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element of this criterion. Moreover, a 
competition may be open to contestants from throughout a particular country or countries, but 
this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nationally or 
internationally recognized." In this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the petitioner's awards are recognized beyond the presenting organizations and therefore 
commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 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. 
Page 9 
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. 
The petitioner submitted an undated "Membership Banner" from the Dance Sport Federation of 
Russia (FTSR), but the banner does not list the petitioner's name or identify her as a member. 
In a January 4, 2009 letter accompanying the petition, counsel asserts that the Membership 
Banner confirms the petitioner's membership in the FTSR. The AAO must look to the plain 
language of the documents executed by the petitioner and not to the statements of counsel. See 
Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 185 (Comm'r 1998). Further, the unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). There is no documentary evidence from the FTSR specifically 
identifying the petitioner as a member. Moreover, there is no documentation (such as bylaws or 
rules of admission) showing that the FTSR requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted a March 15, 2005 credential (Identification_ classifying her as a 
"Leading Specialist" of the Dance Sport Federation of Saint Petersburg (DSFSP). The petitioner 
also submitted a September 5, 2008 letter from the DSFSP stating: "From March 2004 until 
August 2007, [the petitioner] was hired part timely [sic] by the International Organization of 
Dance Sport Federation of Saint Petersburg as a leading specialist in competition conduction." 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted general 
information about the DSFSP from its website and the constitution of the DSFSP. Counsel 
points to Section 4, "Structure and Federation controls," of the constitution as evidence of the 
DSFSP's membership requirements. Section 4 discusses conference assembly and voting 
procedures, but it does not specify the requirements for becoming a member of the DSFSP or for 
being designated as a "Leading Specialist." On appeal, the petitioner submits information from 
the DSFSP (also known as FTS SPb) stating: 
On the basis of Charter FTS SPb from June, 02nd, 1992. Positions No. 12 from February, 
21st. 1998 about existence of conference of delegates FTSR, the Instructions of the 
structure of the conference FTSR and other normative documents is reported about the 
following: 
1. The revisions committee 60 days prior to conference forms out the lists of the new 
applicants for certain positions in the presidium of qualified specialists. This list is 
formed by results of calculations of the counting commission and by following 
criteria: 
A work experience of the trainers-teachers in dancing sports; 
Page 10 
- Professional achievements of trainers-teachers in dancing sports (taking a 
cumulative quantity of the scored points); 
- The judicial experience in dancing sports (taking a cumulative quantity of the 
scored points); 
- A judicial category; 
Quantity of participations in the international and Russian Championships 
(taking a cumulative quantity of the scored points); 
- Quantity of the winning places in the International and Russian 
championships (taking a cumulative quantity of the scored points); 
- Quantity of the letters of recommendations; 
- And other given documents from the candidate. 
2. The revision committee 40 days prior to the conference reviews the lists of candidates 
in presidium ITSR and chose the president ITSR. 
3. The executive committee 30 days prior to conference mails out across St.-Petersburg 
and Northwest district to all dancing groups, dance studios, dance clubs, dance 
schools, individual sportsmen in sports ballroom dances about being able to 
participate in the conference of ITS SPb. In the invitation the following is included: 
- The agenda of general meeting of delegates; 
- Business projects, planned events for the subsequent period of board; 
- Lists of alternate members of board and presidium; 
- Reports on the done work of board and presidium; 
- Other information. 
At conference there is a representation of the proposed members to be of the board and 
presidium of leading experts. We review proposed business projects and actions plans for 
the subsequent period of all candidates are heard. Delegates of the conference that are 
there vote. On the basis of the vote tabulations by counting commission (not less than 2/3 
list quantities of delegates of conference) we approve the new members of board and 
presidium of leading experts ITS SPb affirms. 
The preceding information discusses DSFSP selections for the "presidium of qualified 
specialists," the "presidium of leading experts," and new members of the board. The March 15, 
2005 DSFSP credential and the September 5, 2008 letter from the DSFSP submitted by the 
petitioner, however, do not state that she is a member of the "board" or the "presidium" of the 
DSFSP. Instead, the credential and letter both identify her as a "Leading Specialist." 
Regardless, gaining work experience, receiving a judicial qualification, earning a cumulative 
quantity of scored points over an undefined period, and submitting recommendation letters from 
colleagues do not equate to outstanding achievements. There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's membership classification within the DSFSP required 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in her field. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act. 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) o'nly require service on a single judging panel or a single 
Page 11 
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 "Ietter(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. Chertojf, 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). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that her membership in the 
DSFSP meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which it does not, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the petitioner's membership in more 
than one association requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.4 
The petitioner initially submitted April 6, 1985 and March 5, 1986 articles in Gatchinskaya 
Pravda, but the English language translations accompanying the articles were not full and 
complete translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Any document 
containing foreign language submitted to uscrs shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that 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. Id. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
Gatchinskaya Pravda's managing editor asserting that the newspaper has a circulation of "about 
229,000 editions monthly." The self-serving nature of the managing editor's claim is not sufficient 
to demonstrate that Gatchinskaya Pravda is a form of major media. USCIS need not rely on self­
promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 S10 (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 
317 Fed. Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving 
4 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 12 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The petitioner 
failed to submit objective documentary evidence showing the distribution of Gatchinskaya 
Pravda relative to other Russian media to demonstrate that the submitted articles were published in 
a form of major media. Moreover, the plain language of regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about the alien . . . relating to the field for which 
classification is sought." In this matter, the "field for which classification is sought" is dance 
training and teaching. The AAO cannot conclude that the preceding articles relate to the 
petitioner's work as a dance trainer. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations require 
that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). See 
also Lee v. I.N.s., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Accordingly, published material about the petitioner'S 
accomplishments as a competitive dancer does not meet the elements of this regulatory criterion 
for purposes of establishing her extraordinary ability as a dance trainer. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11 th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence o/the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contrihutions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner failed to establish her eligibility for 
this regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
requires "[eJvidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence 
must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original artistic or athletic contributions 
"of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 
(3,d Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (20d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted a December 23, 2008 certificate of gratitude issued to her by the Public 
School of Ballroom Sport Dance "Olympia" for "her personal contribution to the District and 
Regional Development of Sport Dance of Russian Federation Years 2007-2008." The petitioner 
also submitted a December 27, 2005 award certificate from the Committee of Cultural Municipal 
Education of the City of Gatchina recognizing her for providing "a contribution to the 
development of dance art" as a trainer for the "Olympia" dance school. The preceding 
certificates do not indicate how the petitioner's contributions as a dancer trainer were original, 
nor do they provide information regarding how the petitioner's contributions have impacted the 
field at a level indicative of contributions of "major significance" in the field. There is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work as a dance trainer was recognized 
beyond her school and municipality such that her work constitutes artistic or athletic 
Page 13 
contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's original contributions be "of major significance in 
the field" rather than limited to a particular educational institution or municipality. The record 
lacks documentary evidence showing that the petitioner has made original artistic or athletic 
contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted her field at large. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from P.P. Dorochov, President of the FTSR, stating: 
[The petitioner] is a highly professional [sic] with good teaching skills. She also has her 
own major experience by being a dancer of "International" Class. She uses her unique 
teaching technique in mentoring her dancers special skills to achieve high results. She 
has her own creative approach. She also professionally uses her knowledge and prepares 
dancers for performances. 
The Dance Sport Federation of Russia states that [the petitioner] radically influenced the 
development and preparation processes of children-youth dancing groups in ballroom 
sport dance of Russia. 
praises the petitioner's teaching skills, experience, and kn,nwlerlpp 
not the petitioner's teaching contributions were original. Further, 
fails to provide specitic examples of how the petitioner's instructional techniques have "radically 
influenced the development and preparation processes of children-youth dancing groups" or have 
otherwise significantly impacted her field. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the petitioner's work rises to the level of original artistic or athletic contributions of "major 
significance" in the field. 
fJ"llUU'",;t submitted a letter issued to her by 
stating: 
Every year, the city government invites your children's dance ensembles to perform on 
State level holidays. Yearly, you and your students extend dancing values; bring the 
personal contribution in maintenance and development of the culture of people. After the 
beautiful performances of your ensemble, the significant quantity of people wants to get 
engaged in this noble kind of culture - "Ballroom Dance." 
* * * 
Thanks to performances of your students, popularity of ballroom dance and the quantity 
of professionally dancing people has increased yearly. You have enriched the Nation 
with dancing art and increased the cultural and economic relations between cities and the 
countries. Your bright, colorful performances involved a large quantity of international 
visitors to Gatchina and tourists who wished to see the show of your students again and 
agam. 
asserts that the petitioner's "performances involved a large quantity of international 
visitors to Gatchina and tourists who wished to see the show of [her] students again and again," 
but he fails to provide any specific information regarding the number of tourists or audience 
members in attendance at the petitioner's students' shows. While the petitioner's work may have 
improved the cultural scene in Gatchina and generated interest in ballroom dance in her local 
community, there is no specific evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's original work has 
"enriched the Nation with dancing art and increased the cultural and economic relations between 
cities and the countries." USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's students' performances constitute original 
artistic or athletic contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter addressed to her from 
California, stating: 
We would like to thank you from the bottom of OUf hearts for all that you have done for 
our students at Plaza Production I. You have no idea how grateful we are for all your 
voluntary work. Not only we truly appreciate your time and knowledge, but we also 
recognize your uniqueness and "one-of-a-kind" style of teaching. 
We acknowledge the following features of your technique: 
- Ability to work with the big group of children; 
- Ability to correct errors with delicacy; 
- Ability to reveal hidden capability in children; 
- To teach children to think, listen and to understand the teacher; 
- To develop in children love to dance; 
- To develop a sense of a rhythm, coordination, and movement; 
- Ability to move your beginner students from a simple routine to a compete production; 
- Ability to make each student feel special, and give them the power to spread their wings 
and find their hidden talents . 
••••• compliments the petitioner regarding her teaching abilities, bul does not 
specify how the petitioner'S work is original or equates to original artistic or athletic contributions 
of major significance in the field. Assuming the petitioner'S teaching skills are unique, the 
classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, 
that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 
Page IS 
22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). Regardless, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's teaching techniques have significantly impacted the tield beyond the pupils under her 
immediate tutelage. As previously discussed, contributions limited to the institutions and 
municipalities where the petitioner taught do not equate to original contributions of major 
significance to the field as a whole. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also includes a letter from V.F. Karpunin, Director of the 
Olympia Public School of Ballroom Dance, stating: 
In the training process with "Beginning" children trainer [the petitioner] uses her 
considerable experience of teaching and works on the basic emphasis on developing of 
the musical ear, development of the exact rhythm counts of music, learning of a specific 
exercises for accentuation of work of certain concrete groups of muscles, achieves ideal 
coordination, attention focusing at dance executions, uses special respiration-movement 
exercises, uses her method of training developed by her where she uses a certain 
positions for children for easier perception and understanding of material. Reveals in 
"beginning" children the predispositions of talent hidden in them and in time starts to 
develop their talent, distinguishing and analyzing personal dominants of small dancers. 
An important feature in the training process, which trainer [the petitioner] carries out 
remarkably is very competently being able to talk to children and parents, precisely 
explains and produces explanatory remarks after the conducted lessons, conducting 
training diaries with tasks, estimations, achievements and results. Shows to parents and 
their children elementary complexes of exercises for easily keep in mind and repeatedly 
(training) of a studied material of dance in house conditions. Conducts explanatory work 
with parents "beginning" to dance children about that "Dances" are the fine acting 
medicine helping effectively to develop and strengthen health and coordination of your 
child, thereby carries away parents and children to be engaged in this kind of dancing 
sports, raising attendance of employment. 
Selection in categories and groups "Children," "Children-2," "Juniors," "Youth," trainer­
teacher [the petitioner] displays after one or more years of training of children at school 
"Olympia" a method of preliminary tests and results on feeling of a rhythm, balance, 
coordination, techniques of work of feet and foot, for more older of children - capability 
instantly to repeat movement or a small complete production. The techniques of 
preparation of dancers-sportsmen of trainer [the petitioner] begins with integrated 
development of ethical and esthetic qualities of the person, harmony of mentality, a rising 
of technical skill, all-round functional and physical development. Analysis and appraise 
the degree of absolutely irreproachable fulfillment of movement, receiving in them 
fulfillment, profound sensual, analyze of emotional feeling of children-dancers during (in 
the course of) fulfillment dance [the petitioner] allocates that each kinds of dance has the 
special physical, biomechanics and is musical-rhythmic features. 
Dances of the "European" program possess mathematical precision, accuracy and 
logicality of lines, thus the trainer develops, first of all, aerobic possibilities of a children. 
In the subsequent the trainer methodically fulfills following criteria in dance: Speed or 
smoothness of movements, dance accomplishment by a blochno-modular special course, 
working off of special endurance (saving the energy of the human being), coordination of 
movements, flexibility and plasticity, correct breath by a technique of teaching of ball 
dance. 
She applies a method of techniques release (Release based Technique) - the techniques of 
modern ball dance based on exemption (release) of some groups of muscles for the 
purpose of reception of skills of use onl y of those groups of muscles which are necessary 
in the course of dance. By means of techniques the release develops understanding of 
own body (the balance sheet, an articulation (an impulse, energy), gravitation (the center 
of gravity, work with weight), balance sheet displacement, work of feet ... that gives the 
big variety for development of ball lexicon of the dancer. 
She applies a technique of contact improvisation (Contact Improvisation, CI) - a basis 
which physical contact (contact methods), research and the movement analysis, both the 
dancer, and a couple as a whole. Contact methods of improvisation are weight transfer, 
the counter balance sheet, rotation, movement with falling, the jump, elevating, etc. The 
following stage of teachings of [the petitioner] she fulfills with emotional perception of a 
dancing pair, fulfilling by images and feelings, giving effects of expressive unique dance, 
displaying the uniqueness dancing plastics, thus showing all depth of ideas of dance and 
an emotional condition of the dancers. [The petitioner] in the teaching activity applies 
three basic things: commenting, instructing, and a correcting. It applies principles: 
Education and development, a system and sequence, presentation, supervision, display, 
availability and possibility of execution, durability of training, [the petitioner] as a trainer 
receives the highest of any results. 
Extraordinary and unique professional qualities of trainer-teacher [the petitioner] include 
enthusiasm for the profession, personal high motivation for achievement of the highest 
results, high sports and pedagogical skills, high capability to the analysis and 
introspection, the professional competence, the self-discipline, a healthy conduct of life, 
skills of planning and career construction, esthetic taste, dialogue freedom in collective of 
children and parents, ability to cope with obstacles and difficulties to find a way out of 
difficult situations, psychological maneuverability, purposefulness, possesses skills of the 
leader - all it means that [the petitioner] is the talented and "extraordinary" person. 
discusses the petitioner's training processes, preparation techniques, release 
techniques, and leadership skills, but he fails to provide specific examples of how her work has 
impacted the field at level indicative of original contributions of "major significance" in the 
field. For instance, there is no documentary evidence showing the widespread adoption of the 
petitioner's original methods of instruction by numerous dance schools or that her work is 
otherwise recognized as majorly significant to her field as a whole. also 
concludes that the petitioner's skills demonstrate that she is but merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
While the petitioner has earned the admiration of the preceding references, the record does not 
establish that she has made original artistic or athletic contributions of major significance in the 
field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other 
dancers, teachers, or trainers, nor does it show that the field of ballroom dancing has specifically 
changed as a result of her work. Thus, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that 
the reference letters submitted by the petitioner did not meet the elements of this regulatory 
criterion. The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been 
considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (B1A 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of dance trainer who has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific 
evidence showing that the petitioner's original work has been unusually influential, widely 
applied throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, the AAO cannot conclude that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an October 23, 2009 letter from the President of the Dance Sport 
Federation of the Leningrad Region listing the dance results of Olympia dance school children 
under the petitioner's coaching supervision from 2000 through 2008. The petitioner also 
submitted a November 14, 2008 letter from the Head of the Municipal Department of the Public 
School of Ballroom Sport Dance "Olympia" stating: "[The petitioner] ... in 2000 started 
teaching ... children and youth groups in 'E' and 'D' classes, and working with a children 
group. The teaching experience is 6.5 years. From 2003 to 2004 [the petitioner] was on a 
maternity leave." The petitioner's initial evidence also included two letters of thanks signed by 
her young students. 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. A December 27, 2003 Diploma awarded to "Children's ensemble 'Olympia' Group 
'Children - 2' for 15t Place among children's ensembles in Latin Program" at the 
Leningrad Region "Christmas Souvenir" competition; 
2. A January 7, 2004 Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" children's ensemble for "1" 
Place in Latin and Arbitrary Program Group 'Children 1 ,,, at the "Rising Stars 2004" 
"regional competition of ballroom sport dance"; 
Page 18 
3. A Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" children's ensemble for "I" Place in Latin and 
Arbitrary Program Group 'Children 1 '" at the "Rising Stars 2004" "regional 
competition of ballroom sport dance"; 
4. A Diploma presented to the petitioner as leader of the "Children - 1" team for the 
"Olympia" dance school for achieving 1 SI place in the team competition in the 
"Children - 1" category of the Latin Program "Class E" at the "Cup of CIS" 
(Commonwealth of Independent States) competition (2003); 
5. A May 10, 2003 Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" children's ensemble for 
achieving 1st Place among ensembles in the Latin Program at the XII Open 
Championship of Arhangelsk Region, "The Mayor's Cup of Arhangelsk"; 
6. A Diploma stating that "Sport Dance Club Olympia" was a "Nominee" for the 
"Eksersis" national award "for high achievements in a Sport Dance in 2004"; 
7. An April 29, 2008 Diploma from the Head of the Department of Culture in the City 
of Gatchina presented to the "Olympia" dance ensemble for its participation as a 
contestant in the "We are born for inspiration" gala-concert; 
8. An April 12, 2009 Diploma from the City of Gatchina presented to the "Olympia" 
dance ensemble and the petitioner for participating in the "Rain of Stars 2009" 
charitable event; 
9. A Diploma awarded to the "Olympia" Children's Ensemble for 1st place in the Latin 
Program at the "Cup of Sport Dance Center' Zenit''' (2004); 
10. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1 st place in the Latin 
Program, Class "C" at the "Petersburg Ball - 2007"; 
11. A December 17, 2007 Diploma awarded to the petitioner's student for 1 st place in the 
"Beginners" group at the "Christmas Souvenir" ballroom competition; 
12. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Children-1 
Class 'E'" group at the "Dancing Spring - 2006" ballroom competition; 
13. A Diploma from the Dance Sport Federation of the Republic of Komi awarded to two 
of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "8 Dances" program at the "Russian 
Student Ball - 2007" competition; 
14. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the Latin 
Program at the "Governor's Cup of the City of Perm 'Crystal Slipper - 2008'" 
ballroom competition; 
15. A December 17, 2007 Diploma awarded to the petitioner's student for 1st place in the 
"Beginners" group at the "Christmas Souvenir" ballroom competition; 
16. A Diploma from the Dance Sport Federation of Saint Petersburg awarded to two of 
the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Children-2" program at the "Nevskiy 
Cup - 2005" ballroom competition; 
17. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Latin 
Program Class Coo at the "Legends of the Sport Dance" (2007) ballroom competition; 
18. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Children-
2" category at the "Rating-Competition of the Dance Sport Federation of Saint 
Petersburg" (April 2008); 
19. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "European 
luniors-I" program at the "Peter the Greatest" competition (February 2008); 
Page 19 
20. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for I st place in the "Latin 
Dance" program of the "Peter's Cup - 2008" ballroom competition (November 2008); 
21. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Juniors-2" 
European Program at the "Winter Pattern - 2008" ballroom competition; 
22. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 1st place in the "Juniors-I" 
group in the Latin Program at the "Rising Stars 2006" regional ballroom 
competition; 
23. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for I st place in the "Latin 
Program Class C-13" at the "Rising Stars 2007" regional ballroom competition; 
24. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "'Youth' 8 
Dances, Class 0" category at the Rating-Competition of the Dance Sport Federation 
of Saint Petersburg" (April 2008); 
25. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Children-
2" "8 Dances" program at the "Legends of Sport Dance" ballroom competition (April 
2007); 
26. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Juniors-
2" Latin Program at the "Winter Pattern - 2008" ballroom competition; 
27. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Youth" 
group, "8 Dances," "0 Class" category at the "Winter Pattern - 2008" ballroom 
competition; and 
28. A Diploma awarded to two of the petitioner's students for 2nd place in the "Juniors­
I" Latin Program at the "Legends of Sport Dance" ballroom competition (April 
2007). 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted results for dance competitions in 
which Olympia dance school couples coached by her achieved first and second place. The 
director found that the petitioner had performed in a leading or critical role for the Olympia 
dance school, but that the preceding competitive results were not sufficient to demonstrate that 
the school has a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the petitioner submits published material 
documenting the distinguished reputation of the Olympia dance school. Thus, the petitioner has 
established that she performed in a leading or critical role for the Olympia dance school and that 
the school has a distinguished reputation. The AAO notes, however, that the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner has performed 
in a leading or critical role for distinguished "organizations or establishments" in the plural. As 
previously discussed, the use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, demonstrating a leading or 
critical role for only a single distinguished organization, the Olympia dance school, does not 
meet the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted an October 12, 2009 letter from stating that the petitioner 
earned an "annual income higher than any other coach up to 2.0-2.5 times" while working at the 
Olympia Public School of Ballroom Dance. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner 
submitted her Russian tax return for 2007 reflecting total earnings of 910,754 rubles. The 
petitioner's 2007 earnings included 216,000 rubles from the Olympia dance school, 557,754 
rubles from private training sessions, and 137,000 rubles in competition award monies, 
910,754 rubles. The petitioner also submitted an April 1, 2010 letter from 
Gatchina Administration of Municipal 
average the teaching trainer of ballroom sport 
dance is: 20,450 rubles." The AAO notes that monthly earnings of 20,450 rubles 
yearly earnings of 245,400 rubles. The preceding letters from 
_ were unaccompanied by documentary evidence of the specific governmental wage 
data upon which their observations are based. The nonexistence or other unavailability of 
primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Moreover, 
the submitted documentation does not specify the number of hours worked by the petitioner in 
2007. For instance, the submitted documentation does not indicate whether or not the 
petitioner's earnings differential was based on her conducting more private training sessions and 
working longer hours in relation to others rather than her commanding a significant! y higher rate of 
pay per session or a high hourly wage relative to others in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a March 21, 2007 article in the Belarusian sports magazine 
Sport Panorama mentioning average salaries for directors, assistants, and instructor­
methodologists at school-sports establishments in Belarus. The salary information discussed in 
the article, however, is not relevant to dance trainers in Russia. The petitioner also submits a 
September 16, 2010 article in Newsland stating: "The average wages of teachers at the Russian 
schools now constitute 17.4 thousand r[ u]bles." The petitioner, however, must submit 
documentary evidence regarding the earnings of dance trainers who perform similar work rather 
than for Russian school teachers in general. See Matter of Price, 20 I&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. III. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary 
versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. III. 1995) (comparing 
salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The 
Petersburg, Russia) stating: 
submission also includes a September 8, 20 I 0 "Audit Report" from 
" (an "audit company" in St. 
According to a database on tax declarations of physical persons of the Russian Federation 
it is reported: 
- On point No.1: the average total annual earnings of the trainer-teacher in city. 
municipal, budgetary and children-youthful schools on ballroom dances across 
St.-Petersburg and Northwest district correspond to a limit from 190,000 -
249,000 rubles; 
Page 21 
- On point No.2: the average total annual earnings of the trainer-teacher on 
ballroom dances across Russia correspond to a limit of 170,000 - 205,000 rubles; 
- On point No.3: the average total annual earnings of the highly paid trainer­
teacher on ballroom dances correspond to a limit of 880,000 - 1,140,000 rubles; 
- On point No.4: 
- The declared annual earnings [the petitioner] for 2006 - 772,340 rubles; 
- The declared annual earnings [the petitioner] for 2007 - 910,754 rubles; 
- The declared annual earnings [the petitioner] for 2008 - 1,023,989 rubles. 
E.P. Ulich's letter is unaccompanied by documentary evidence of the petitioner's 2006 and 2008 
tax returns and the specific printouts from the Russian Federation tax declaration database upon 
which his observations are based. As previously discussed, the nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Regardless, the petitioner's reliance on "average" earnings data is not an 
appropriate basis for comparison. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to submit evidence demonstrating that she has received 
"high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services" in relation to others in the 
field rather than simply earnings that are above average in her field. Accordingly, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that she has received a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories 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: (I) 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 
Page 22 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination.5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
Id. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
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. 
'The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the otIice 
that made the last dccision in this matter. 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(I) of the Act; scction 
204(b) of thc Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 CF.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 CF.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aarelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sale authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).