dismissed EB-1A Case: Choreography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 10, 2024 In Re: 33167324 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a choreographer, seeks first preference immigrant classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of 
a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone who initially 
satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that she meets the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner also asserts that she meets the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which relates to published material about the Petitioner in professional or 
major trade publications or major media. However, because the Petitioner has not established that she 
meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), she would not establish that she met three out of ten 
criteria even if we considered her claims regarding the remamrng criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As such, we need not determine whether she meets the requirements of 
that criterion, nor do we need to provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we will reserve these issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 
24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings 
and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that the beneficiary meets at 
least three of the ten criteria 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 demonstrates that the beneficiary meets these initial evidence requirements, we 
then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 
the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) ( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, 
if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to be an individual of extraordinary ability based on her skills and experience as 
a professional choreographer. As a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner listed herself in 
Part I of the petition form, which asks for information about the person or organization filing the 
petition. However, when asked to provide additional information about "the Petitioner" in Part 5, No. 
2 of the petition, the Petitioner listed as the organization filing this petition. 
The Petitioner did not further explain the relationship, if any, between her and the named organization, 
nor did she elaborate on the work she plans to undertake under an approved petition. 1 
Regardless, because the Petitioner does not claim or submit evidence to show that she received a 
major, internationally recognized award, she must provide evidence showing that she satisfies at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). As previously noted, the 
1 See Section 203(b)(1 )(ii) of the Act, "the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability." 
2 
Petitioner claims that she meets the elements of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iii). The 
Director determined that she met only one criterion, the elements of the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The primary issue to be discussed in this matter is whether the Petitioner 
has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), which pertains to membership in professional 
associations. To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that she is a member in an association 
in her field, that the association requires outstanding achievements of its members, and that this 
requirement is judged by national or international experts in the field. 
The Petitioner claims that she satisfies this criterion based on her membership in the Actors' Equity 
Association (AEA). As evidence of her membership in the AEA, the Petitioner submitted a letter on 
AEA letterhead authored by I I who stated that the Petitioner joined the AEA on May 
10, 2023. The Petitioner also submitted a document entitled "AEA Membership Information and 
Procedures," which provided instrnctions for joining the association, listed the application 
instructions, the initiation fee, and member dues, and elaborated on circumstances for loss of 
membership. 
In the denial, the Director noted the AEA's role as a bargaining agent for its members but concluded 
that the record lacks evidence showing that in order to join the organization, prospective members 
must demonstrate that they have outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the relevant field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not correctly apply the law or USCTS policy, 
arguing that the AEA "is a prestigious professional organization" of which she is an active member. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that she gained membership in the AEA "only after she fulfilled the 
stringent requirements," which include attending certain workshops and accumulating a certain 
number of work weeks. The Petitioner also asserts that AEA applicants must "meet certain eligibility 
requirements and follow a specific application processes" prior to becoming members. 
The Petitioner did not, however, submit sufficient evidence to support her claims. As a preliminary 
matter, the Petitioner did not adequately present evidence of her membership in the AEA. Although 
the Petitioner relies on the previously submitted letter from Ms. I las evidence of membership, 
Ms.I I letter does not disclose her position, if any, with the AEA or state how she obtained 
information about the Petitioner's claimed membership. 
Further, despite arguing that the AEA "requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition 
for membership" and does not require "mere employment or activity in the field of acting," the 
Petitioner does not offer evidence to support this assertion. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner's reliance on the previously submitted "AEA Membership 
Information and Procedures" document is misplaced, as none of the provisions in this document 
indicate that membership is conditional upon the applicant's ability to demonstrate outstanding 
achievements as judged by recognized experts in the field. The membership document shows that in 
addition to correctly filling out the application form and meeting required financial obligations, the 
applicant must demonstrate one of the following: 1) employment "under an Equity contract"; 2) prior 
membership in good standing in a performing arts sibling union for at least one year and prior work 
as a performer under one of three types of contracts; or 3) joining AEA under the "Open Access" 
program based on prior work as an actor or stage manager at a theater that is within AEA' s 
3 
geographical jurisdiction. As correctly determined by the Director, the submitted evidence does not 
demonstrate that eligibility for AEA membership is conditional upon a showing of outstanding 
achievements by the prospective AEA member. As such, the Petitioner has not established that 
membership in the AEA, even if properly documented, meets the requirements of the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As previously noted, the Petitioner also asserts that she meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
which relates to published material about the petitioner and their work in the field of endeavor in a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium. However, given the deficiencies 
described above, we need not determine whether the Petitioner meets the requirements of these criteria, 
and we will reserve these issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that she met either a one-time award, or three of ten initial criteria. The 
Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of 
their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level 
do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that she 
is one of the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4