dismissed EB-1A Case: Choreography

MATTER OF 1-V-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. L 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a choreographer and coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the field of sensory therapy. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied one of the initial evidentiary criteria. of which 
she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that she satisfies at least three criteria. She further 
maintains that she has established her eligibility for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter ~fl-V-S-
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 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). 
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. USC!S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0).1 
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 "eac h 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 ol 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner identifies herself as a top coach and a choreographer 2. Because she has not indicated 
or established that she has received a major , internationally recognized award, to meet the initial 
evidence requirements. she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Upon a review of the record in its entirety , we concur with the Director's 
finding that she has satisfied the criterion relating to her performance in a leading or critical role.3 
See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). She, however, has not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements 
of meeting at least three of the ten criteria . 
Preliminarily, we note the Petitioner's assertion that she is starting a '·new chapter'' in her life 
"unrelated to dancing and choreography'' by providing sensory therapy to autistic children through 
her 
company , She intends to enter the United States to "promote 1 products to 
various organizations (that are] involved in helping children with special needs" and to promote her 
"method of coaching." which " integrate(s] her own personalized choreographic dance routines·· into 
therapy . 
1 
This case discusses 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); R[ia/v . USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339(W .D. Wash. 2011). 
2 
The Petitioner does not define the term "top coach," nor does she differentiate it from other coaching. 
' The Director does not explain the basis for his determin atio n that the Petitioner satisfied this criteri~n. After review of 
the record, we find that the Petitioner has estab lished that she performed in a critical role as a choreographer for 
. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(vii i). -----
2 
.
Matter of 1-V-S-
Under the framework set forth in Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act, the Petitioner must first establish 
extraordinary ability in her chosen field before we will determine if she intends to continue to work 
in that area and if her entry would substantially benefit the United States. Both the Petitioner and the 
Director appear to conflate the separate steps of the analysis and erroneously focus on her sensory 
therapist work as the basis for determining if she satisfies the eligibility criteria. While the Petitioner 
has submitted evidence related to her new career for some criteria , we will review it only as it relates 
specifically to her work as a top coach and choreography , the fields of extraordinary ability she 
identified in her initial filing. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt (?f lesser nationall y or internationally recognized priz es or 
awards for excellen ce in the field q{endeavor . 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner won awards from major national and international 
dance festivals and competitions in recognition for her dancing abilities. For many of these award s 
and supporting materials, she submitted illegible photographs or documents accompani ed by a 
summary translation. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English 
language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English langu age 
translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. /d. Without a legible copy of the original and a full English language 
translation of the document , we cannot meaningfull y determine whether the translated material is 
accurate and thus suppmi s the Petitioner's claims . 
The Petitioner contends that she has also won awards for her work as a choreographer. She submit s 
a copy of her honorary ' in choreography from the 
asserting without corroboration that this diploma demonstrates 
that she is in the "Top out of 620 best graduates in the field of Choreography in Ukraine. " The 
record demonstrates that the academy is a Ukrainian institution of higher education, and this diploma 
signifies that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements for a degree in choreography. The translated 
copy of this diploma states that she completed "the full course of 
got basic higher education [in the] field of study 'Choreograph y' and 
obtained bachelor's degree and qualification of ballet master teacher of modern dance ensemble s.'· 
Academic awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation , without evidence of 
recognition on a national or international level, tall short of satisfying this criterion. The Petitioner 
provides no documentary evidence demonstrating that her '' is recogni zed bey
ond 
the academy. 
She also submits certificates of appreciation issued by the 
and the m 
the in Ukraine. The certificates recognize the Petitioner's volunteer work for 
children suffering from central nervous system and autistic spectrum disorders, but do not specify 
that they were for excellence in the field of choreograph y or top coaching. 
3 
.
,Hatter of 1- V-S-
The record includes a certificate of appreciation and an accompanying letter from the 
of Ukraine for the Petitioner's "innovational'' and ''unique" contributions to 
the education of children with autism spectrum disorders. The record does not contain evidence 
corroborating her claim that only 200 individuals out of a pool of 38,000,000 people received this 
award . Additionally , the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence establishing that these 
certificates are nationally or internationally recognized. For example, the record lacks 
documentation, such as national or international-level media coverage , which might confirm the 
certificates' national or international recognition. Based on these reasons. we concur with the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe alien ·s membership in associations in thefieldj(Jr ·which classifi cation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged hy recvgnb ;d 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's membership in the 
did not satisfy this criterion. noting that 
the record was devoid of evidence that the 
society's president and chief executive officer (CEO) , who selected individuals for membership, 
were recognized national or international experts in their fields. He also stated that the Petitioner did 
not submit evidence demonstrating that outstanding achievement s were required for membership in 
the society. On appeal, the Petitioner has provided membership rules and regulations . its 
charter, and evidence documenting the Petitioner's member ship. Review of those document s show 
that the society does require outstanding achievements of its members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The record does not demonstrate , however, that is an assoc1at10n in the field tor which 
classification is sought. The Petitioner identifies her field as choreography and top coaching. In her 
letter, the CEO of indicates it is an organization that develop s and 
implements "innovative social policies concerning disabled citizens, providing them with fair 
opportunities, their adjustment and integration into the modern informationa l society. effecti ve 
problem solutions of other socially unprotected society layers." Additionally. neither the charter or 
membership rules indicate that the organi zation is associated with choreograph y or coaching. 
references the Petitioner's work on a virtual reality cognitive program . The 
presentation on submitted on appeal identifies the Petitioner not as a choreographer, but as 
a "body-therapist, neuroscientist. cognitive coach'' and thus her work there falls outside her 
identified field of extraordinary ability. Thus, it appears that and the Petitioner's work with 
that organization are at best tangentially related to coaching and choreography. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
4 
.
Matter c?f I- V-S-
Published material about the alien in pn~fessional or major trade puhlications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for ·which class{fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author (~{the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains five articles relating to the Petitioner's dancing experience and abilities . As 
noted by the Director, none of them identify the Petitioner as the choreographer for the performances 
discussed. On appeaL the Petitioner provides letters from individuals associated with the 
performances discussed in the articles , who address her roles and responsibilities during that time. 
While supportive of the Petitioner's claims, such letters cannot overcome the plain language of the 
criterion , which requires publication of material about the Petitioner and her work in the field. 
The Petitioner has presented six additional articles that appeared in websites, a web portal, and an 
electronic journal, relating to her sensory therapy business. While the Petitioner has submitted 
certified translations of the articles, the record lacks original language versions of the documents. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Without the original document , we cannot meaningfully detennine whether 
the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
According to the translations provided, the Petitioner submitted three articles she authored, which 
promote her company, and its associated methodologies . These self-serving articles do not 
appear in a qualifyin g publication or major media , and they have minimal evidentiary value. 
See Braga v. Poulos , No. CV 06-5105 SJO I 0. 2007 WL 9229758, *6-7 (C. D. Cal. July 6, 2007) . 
affd , 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine 's status as major media) . 
Additionally, the record lacks evidence required to establish that the articles appeared in professional 
or trade publications or other major media. Specifically. the Petitioner has provided no information 
relating to the distribution or visitor data of the websites or the online journal that would demonstrate 
they meet the regulatory requirements. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion . 
Evidence of the alien 's participation. either individually or on a panel . as a judge c?f'the work (~l 
others in the same or an allied.field (~f specffication.f(Jr which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on her 2015 appointment as the head judge of the 
choreographic showcase for a multidisciplinary arts festival in Ukraine. According 
to the documentation submitted, she was required to consider factors such as the "dynamics of 
dancing," "complexity of dance moves and their composition," and ·'gymnastic and power indicators 
of dances." 
We find that the Director erred in determining that the record did not establish eligibility for this 
criterion . The Petitioner' s career transition to sensory therapy and her intent to promote that 
.
Matter of 1-V-S-
business upon admission are prospective considerations unrelated to her historical achievements as a 
choreographer. Here, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner served as a judge within her field, 
and that she has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence o{ the alien ·s original scient(fic. scholarly. artistic, athletic. or husiness-related 
contributions (~{major sign(/icance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. The 
first is evidence of the Petitioner's contributions in her field. These contributions must have already 
been realized rather than being potential , future contributions. She must also demonstrate that her 
contributions are original. The documentation must establish that the contributions are scientific , 
scholarly , artistic , athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions must rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole , rather than to a 
project or to an organization. The phrase '·major significance' ' is not superfluous. See Silverman r. 
Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L. P.. 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995). quoted in AP WU v. Polter. 
343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003 ). Contributions of major significance connote that the Petitioner's 
work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v): see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 
4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013). 
The Petitioner submits letters from various schools including ' and 
which praise her charitable contributions to their organizations and commend her 
methods and achievements in the field of sensory therapy for autistic children . While these letters 
denote the writers' gratitude for her contributions, they lack specificity on how her achievements 
have affected the field as a whole or demonstrate that therapeutic methods involving her 
choreography are being widely used or accepted within the field. 
The record includes testimonial letters, emails, and other forms of feedback from clients who praise 
as well as her methods of sensory therapy that relate to dance and choreography, including 
her ' · The Petitioner oilers various emails from parents, whose children used 
her methods through organizations such as ' · and ' ' The regulation, 
however, requires that contribution s be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to a 
few of the Petitioner 's customers. While these testimonials establish that her methods have 
produced satisfactory results for her clients , they are insufficient to demonstrate that her impact in 
the field rises to the level of "major significance." See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (tinding 
that to meet this criterion , a petitioner must demonstrate impact beyond his or her clients or 
employers). Aside from the preceding customers, there is no documentary evidence 
showing the widespread commercial or industrial implementation of the Petitioner's work or that 
they otherwise equate to an original contribution of major significance in the field . 
She also relies on the publication of her self-authored articles regarding the success of her company, 
and her therapeutic methods as evidence of her original contributions of major 
significance. We acknowledg e her claim that is the only company of its kind in Ukraine, 
and that it has impacted lives as evidenced from the submitted client testimonials. While the succe ss 
6 
.
Matter of I- V-S-
of her company is noted, the Petitioner has not illustrated that she has influenced the field of sensory 
therapy as a whole to a level that qualities as contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, she has submitted several letters from specialists in the United States and Ukraine 
expressing interest in her methods of sensory therapy. For example, a letter from of 
states that he is interested in possibly integrating dance into his sessions 
with clients, and would like to further pursue this idea once the Petitioner arrives in the United 
States. The letter from Ph.D., at the 
further expresses interest in the Petitioner's methodologies and states that she "would be pleased to 
recommend patients' ' to her. As noted , the regulation requires that contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to one's potential employers or clients. While the letters 
demonstrate that these individuals are interested in her methodologies, they do not sufficientl y 
document widespread commercial or industrial implementation of her work. 
Finally, although the record contains documents verifying the Petitioner's receipt of certificates of 
appreciation for her work, we determined that these certificates are not nationally or internationally 
recognized and do not satisfy the criterion under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Regardless, while these 
accolades recognize her contributions to the field, they do not specifically explain what she has done 
that constitutes major significance in the field of sensory therapy . Likewise, while the Petitioner has 
received some media attention , and references these articles on appeal , they do not show that her 
methodologies have had a significant impact in the field as a whole. For these reasons. she has not 
demonstrated that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field . 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantl_v high remuneration 
jiJr services. in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
This criterion requires evidence of "a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field." Here, the Petitioner asserts that her salary as a 
choreographer in Ukraine "generally exceeded'' the compensation offered to other dancers and 
choreographers. On appeal , she submits a copy of her agreement with which 
states that she would receive a compensation of €28,000 for a four-month assignment in China from 
June 2012 to September 2012. The Petitioner claims that this salary, which she equates to $30,000, 
is "considered substantially high even for choreographers here in the United States .'' 
The Petitioner, however, must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has 
earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration '' in comparison with those performing 
similar work during the same time period. See Matter (?l Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm 'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other Professional Goiters· 
Association (PGA) Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS. 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 
(considering a National Hockey League (NHL) enforcer ' s salary versus other NHL enforcers) ; Muni 
v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of a NHL defensive player to 
salary of other NHL defensemen). The record. however, contains no evidence demonstrating that 
.
Mafler of 1-V-S-
the Petitioner's rate of compensation under this agreement constituted a high salary or was 
significantly high in relation to others in the field. 
She also submits a copy of her agreement with which outlines the terms of an offer of 
employment in the United States. Specifically, the agreement, executed on November 14, 2016, 
indicates that she will spearhead the development of three videos combining choreographic dance 
movements with various methodologies for therapeutic purposes. This agreement lists her 
anticipated compensation as $5,000 per month plus uncapped earnings potential from the sale and 
distribution of the videos. She otTers an article entitled ' 
in support of her claim that anticipated royalties from these videos will be significant. 
This agreement is insufficient to show that the Petitioner satisfies the criterion because she has not 
provided a specific amount of compensation. A base salary and an unspecified amount from video 
sales and distribution do not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's level of compensation. In 
addition, the record is devoid of objective earnings data showing that these wages constitute a "'high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration'' in comparison with those performing similar work in 
the field of sensory therapy. See Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. at 954. In light of the above, the 
Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts. as shown by box office receipts or 
record, casseue. compact disk. or video sales. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion and the record supports this 
conclusion. She submits letters and evidence of ticket sales for her performance of ' 
at the in Ukraine , in 201 1. art director at 
. indicates in her letter that the Petitioner performed a mono-play under that name in 2011. A 
letter from general manager of the ticket sales outlet, notes that the tickets for the 
initial show sold out and the performance was extended for five additional days. The Petitioner also 
submits a report on ticket sales from performances of' ' at the 
in September 2015. The record includes a certificate of 
appreciation from the theater , which indicates the Petitioner staged and performed a role in the 
musical play. 
It is unclear , from the evidence provided , that the ticket sales for two sets of performances occurring 
years apart represent commercial successes. This criterion focuses on volume of sales and receipts 
as a measure of a petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. Therefore, the fact that a 
petitioner has performed in theatrical productions would be insufficient, in and of itself~ to meet this 
criterion. The evidence must show that the volume of sales and receipts reflect her commercial 
success in the performing a11s. Without corroborative evidence indicating that the Petitioner's shows 
have attracted substantial audiences or generated significant sales, the documentation submitted is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
8 
Matter of 1- V-S-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
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 need not tully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-V-S-, ID# 744549 (AAO Feb. I, 2018) 
9