dismissed EB-1A Case: Circus Performer

identifying data deleted ra 
PE i;p'tt i1~2r! j unwarranted 
inv:?;id:r 3f ;teEor;si pivacJ 
PUBLIC COPX 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 05 249 5 1497 
 KT 2 8 2008 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
7<dministrative Appeals Onlce 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) hority 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 ths 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, 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or intemational 
acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that he has sustained national or intemational acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on March 30, 2006, seeks to classifl the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a "Cossack Dzhigit Rider." The petitioner submitted a letter from s, Production Manager, 
Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey, stating: "[The petitioner] is presently working as a performer for 
the 2006-2007 tour of the 136~ edition of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey. He is under a two-year 
contract, which began January 4, 2006 and will end approximately November 2007, with the Kassaev Riders 
and is earning $650 per week." The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he won several awards 
in acrobatics competition in Azerbaijan and Russia from 1982 to 1997. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
letter of support from the Azerbaijan Gymnastics Federation stating that he trained with the federation from 
1980 to 1998 and that he was a member of the Republic National Team from 1992 to 1998. 
In the seven years preceding the petition's filing date, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner has 
remained active in national or international acrobatic competition. Further, according to Part 6 of the Form I- 
140 petition, "Basic information about the proposed employment," letters from representatives of hngling 
Brothers and Barnum & Bailey, and his 2006-2007 employment contract, the petitioner (age 3 1 at the time of 
filing) is seehng work in the United States as a horse rider and circus performer rather than as a competitive 
athlete. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and 
that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $9 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a competitive 
acrobat and a Cossack Dzhigit Rider may both employ acrobatic techniques (such as performing somersaults), 
we cannot conclude that competitive athletics and performing horse riding stunts for a circus are the same 
area of expertise. 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 worhng in 
the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that 
field. For example, Lee's 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. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through competitive acrobatic 
achievements in the seven years preceding the petition's filing date. Further, the evidence is clear that the 
petitioner intends to work as Cossack Dzhigit Rider for Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey. While the 
petitioner's accomplishments as a competitive athlete are not completely irrelevant and will be given some 
consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) through his achievements as 
a horse rider and circus performer, his area of intended employment in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a May 2 1, 1994 certificate 
from the President of the International Olympic Committee certifying that he "has taken part in" the 
"Championship of the Azerbaijan State Physical Culture and Sport Academy on Sport Acrobatic." The 
petitioner argues that this certificate is evidence of a one-time achievement that satisfies the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). There is no evidence showing that this certificate is a major, internationally 
recognized award, rather than simply an acknowledgment of petitioner's participation in the event. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the 
very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement 
must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally 
recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 
WL 200418 at *6739. Given that the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a 
one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may 
include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. The 
regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, 
internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally 
recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least 
three. 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the 
public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably 
constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear fi-om the example provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the 
top awards in that field. 
In addressing the May 21, 1994 certificate, the director's decision stated that "the certificate does not indicate 
that the [petitioner] won any award. Rather, the certificate merely states that the [petitioner] took part in the 
competition. As such, the certificate is not evidence of a . . . major, internationally recognized award." We 
concur with the director's finding. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the 
sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot 
establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the 
evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted 
evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that he won several awards in acrobatics competition 
from 1982 to 1997. Many of these awards were received in junior level competition. For example, the 
petitioner submitted a September 1987 award diploma stating that he won first place in the "Championship of 
Russian Council Department Physical Culture Sports Society of the Trade Union's [sic] on sports acrobatics 
among youths and girls not older than 1969 birth in the . . . category man's [sic] couples exercises." 
[Emphasis added.] The petitioner also submitted an award diploma dated May 24, 1986 stating that he won 
second place in the "Championship of Soviet Army and Navy on sports acrobatics in the Man's [sic] couples 
exercises among youths." [Emphasis added.] In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
submitted an April 1996 award diploma stating that he won second place in the men's pair exercises at the 
"Moscow Junior Olympic Games." [Emphasis added.] 
The petitioner's response also included a July 25, 2006 letter fiom, Coach of the 
Azerbaijan National Junior Team, stating: "From 1985 till 1993 [the petitioner] was a member of Junior 
National Acrobatics Team of Republic." With regard to acrobatic awards won by the petitioner in junior level 
competition, we do not find that such awards indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). CIS 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. Cornmr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that an 
athlete who has had success in national or international at the junior level should necessarily qualifL for an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2) that ths visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals 
that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Even if the petitioner were to establish that some of his awards were not limited to junior competition, the plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5@)(3)(i) specifically requires that his awards be nationally 
or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. In this case, there is no evidence establishing the magnitude of the competitions in which the 
petitioner received awards or evidence demonstrating that they commanded significant recognition beyond 
the context of the sporting event where they were presented. For instance, there is no evidence showing that 
the awards received by the petitioner were announced in national sports media or in some other manner 
consistent with national or international acclaim. With regard to the petitioner's Master of Sport Certificate in 
Acrobatics (1989), the petitioner has not submitted evidence of its selection requirements or national 
significance. Further, there is no evidence showing the petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized awards in the eight years preceding the petition's filing date. Thus, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his national or international acclaim as a competitive athlete has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). Finally, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has received any nationally or internationally recognized awards for 
horse riding or circus performance, the petitioner's current field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
2 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at "4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player with the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that CIS'S interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the$eld for which classijication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the 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 initially submitted his employee identification for Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey, his 
credential for the Russian State Circus Company (1995), and his Master of Sport Certificate in Acrobatics 
(1989). We do not find that the petitioner's employment credentials and Master of Sport Certificate are 
tantamount to memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievement. Further, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that obtaining these documents required outstanding achievements as evaluated by national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter of recommendation fkom the "Baku Main Educational Complex, 
Children's Youth School of the Grammar School, Specialized on Olympic Base," Azerbaijan, stating that he 
was a member of the board of judges in internal competitions of the Republic. There is no- evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that this board required outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's 
field or an allied one. This evidence will be further addressed under the "judge of the work of others" 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from the "Baku Main Board 
of Education, Children's and Youth Sport School of the Olympic Reserve, Specialized in Gymnastics" stating 
that he has been a member of the "RS DFSO 'Trudovye Reseny' - an All-Union voluntary sports association 
(DSO), which unites students, sportsmen and vocation training workers" since 1986. The petitioner also 
submitted information about the association printed from http:/lwww.ezi.rul1/80/792.htm, but there is no 
evidence indicating that it requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
The petitioner's response also included a September 16, 2004 letter from the Russian State Circus Company 
stating that it "has more than 8,000 employees, including 3,000 in the circus conveyor, who work in 830 acts 
and 48 rides, most of which are international rank." The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that the company requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
As discussed, the petitioner also submitted a July 25, 2006 letter from 
 Coach of the 
Azerbaijan National Junior Team, stating: "From 1985 till 1993 [the petitioner] was a member of Junior 
Page 7 
National Acrobatics Team of Republic." Membership on an Olympic Team or a major national team such as 
a World Cup soccer team can serve to meet this criterion. Such teams are limited in the number of members 
and have a rigorous selection process. We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
that he meets every element of a gven criterion, including that he is a member of a team that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will not presume that 
every national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. 
The petitioner has not established that his membership on Azerbaijan's Junior National Acrobatics Team meets 
this regulatory criterion. Membershp on this team is restricted to youth competitors rather than limited to those 
at the very top of the field who have shown outstanding achievements. As discussed, CIS 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. at 953,954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. As such, the petitioner cannot establish that he 
meets this criterion based on his achievements as a junior athlete. Further, we cannot consider a 1985 - 1993 
athletic team membership to be evidence of the petitioner's sustained national acclaim, as this membership 
terminated more than a decade before the petition's filing date. The statute and regulations require the petitioner 
to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). Finally, the athletic memberships claimed by the 
petitioner are unrelated to his work as a horse riding circus performer, his intended occupation in the United 
States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(5). 
We concur with the director's analysis indicating that the preceding evidence could not serve to meet this 
regulatory criterion. The petitioner does not specifically challenge the director's findings on appeal. Rather, 
the petitioner states that "being a leading acrobat of the Azerbaijan Gymnastic Federation" and a member of 
the "Nougzarov horse riding show" render him eligible under this criterion. The record, however, does not 
include evidence showing that these organizations require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in profasional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classlJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necasa y translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet ths 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. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. 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.3 
3 
 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. 
The petitioner submitted articles about his horse riding troupe and the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & 
Bailey circus in the Abilene Reporter-News, The Saginaw News, The Sedalia Democrat, Asheville Citizen- 
Times, Pelican Press, Cannstatter Zeitung, The Press of Atlantic City, Cape May County Gazette, Zerkalo, 
The Bright Side newspaper, Cape May County Herald, Arizona Tribune, Spectacle, New York Post, Orange 
County Weekly, The Sun Herald, New York Times, Manhattan Living Magazine, Pasadena Star-News, Inside 
Bay Area newspaper, Greeley Tribune, New York Daily News, The Patriot News, and the Arizona Daily Star. 
None of these articles were about the petitioner. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that 
the published material be "about the alien." Further, many of the preceding publications are local newspapers 
rather than major media. 
The director's decision stated that the local articles and the articles that did not mention the petitioner by 
name could not serve to meet this regulatory criterion. The petitioner does not specifically challenge the 
director's findings on appeal and we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speczfication for which classiJication is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
national competition for top acrobats is of far greater probative value than judging an age-group competition at 
the local level. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted a letter of recommendation from the "Baku Main Educational 
Complex, Children's Youth School of the Grammar School, Specialized on Olympic Base," Azerbaijan, 
stating that he was a member of the board of judges in internal competitions of the Republic. The petitioner 
also submitted an undated recommendation letter from E.A. Narimanov, President of Acrobatic Gymnastics 
Technical Committee, Azerbaijan Gymnastics Federation, stating: "During study in the Azerbaijan State 
Academy of Physical Training and Sports, [the petitioner] has begun activity of the judge. [The petitioner] at 
competitions spent every year among students of the first course, in Republican championship, championship 
of city Baku among teenagers has proved to be as the active judge." The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification." We cannot conclude that judging students, who have not yet begun competing at the 
very top level of the sport, meets this requirement. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an additional letter from E.A. 
Narimanov indicating that the petitioner judged ten local and regional competitions from 1990 to 1992.~ In 
addressing the preceding evidence, the director's decision stated: 
According to the evidence, the [petitioner] began working as a judge while he was a student. 
According to Mr. , the competitions which the beneficiary judged took place while the 
[petitioner] was between 15 and 17 years of age. Thus, on its face, such evidence would suggest that 
the [petitioner] was judging other students. However, while identifying the events which the 
[petitioner] judged, the petitioner provided no evidence describing the competitors, their ages, or their 
level of proficiency. Therefore, the evidence does not demonstrate that the [petitioner] has ever 
judged the work of other professional acrobats. . . . In order to satisfy this criterion, the petitioner 
would have to provide evidence demonstrating that [he] has a history of judging professional adult 
acrobats, at least at a level of proficiency comparable to his own. Again, the evidence provided does 
not satisfy this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from , Vice President, Azerbaijan Gymnastics 
Federation, stating that competitors in the ten local and regional competitions judged by the petitioner from 
1990 to 1992 included "masters of sport." There is no supporting evidence establishing the level of acclaim 
associated with serving as a judge at the preceding events. Nor is there evidence showing the names of the 
athletes evaluated by the petitioner, the specific acrobatic events he judged at the ten competitions, and the 
significance and magnitude of the competitions. Without evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner's 
activities involved judging top athletes in national level competition or were otherwise consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of his sport, we cannot conclude that he meets 
this criterion. Finally, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has judged any competitions in his 
field since 1992 at the age of 17. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or 
international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), 
and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thefield. 
The petitioner did not address this regulatory criterion initially or in response to the director's request for 
evidence. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the letters of recommendation submitted by those with whom he 
has worked and by representatives of organizations such as the Azerbaijan Gymnastics Federation, the Baku 
Main Board of Education Specialized Gymnastic Children's and Youth Sport School of Olympic Reserve, the 
Russian State Circus Company, and Field Entertainment, Inc. (Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey) meet 
this criterion. We acknowledge the reference letters praising the petitioner's performance slulls and athletic 
qualities. Skill and athletic ability in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of contributions of major 
significance. 
The record reflects that the petitioner was born on March 14, 1975. We cannot ignore that the petitioner judged these 
competitions when he was age 15 to 17 years old. 
The letter f?om states that "[olther acrobats of our federation adopted [the petitioner's] skills 
and technique of acrobatic performance," but it does not specify which skills and technique or establish that 
they were original. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also included a letter from, Head of Human Resources, 
Russian State Circus Company, stating: 
[The petitioner] performed difficult and rare stunts in the show, i.e. thrusts off the ground and getting 
back into the saddle, thrusts done at the same time as the grasp of the rear arch on the pommel, 
scissors and picking up different items fiom the stage on galloping horse from one side of the horse, 
Ural twirl, shoulder stands and thrusts to the rhythm. 
There is no evidence showing that the preceding stunts were the petitioner's own original techniques, as 
opposed to those he learned from other riders with whom he trained or performed. 
With regard to the petitioner's achievements as an athlete and a circus performer, the letters of 
recommendation do not specify exactly what the petitioner's original athletic and artistic contributions have 
been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his 
field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 
and, thus, that it has some meaning. Even if the petitioner's acrobatic and horse riding stunt techniques were 
found to be original, there is nothing to demonstrate that his particular methods and techniques were of major 
significance to his field. For example, there is no evidence showing the extent of the petitioner's influence on 
other acrobats or circus riders. Nor is there evidence showing that circus horse riding or the sport of 
acrobatics have somehow changed as a result of his accomplishments. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successfitl 
extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Comrnr. 1988). However, CIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795. Thus, the content of the experts' 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 of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of an athlete or performer who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Page 11 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted photographs fkom his circus performances and athletic competitions. 
 The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion, however, indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors 
and painters) rather than for than for performing artists or athletes such as the petitioner. The petitioner seeks 
to continue hs work in the United States as performing artist for a circus. It is inherent to his occupation to 
perform. Not every circus performance is an artistic exhibition designed to showcase the performer's art. 
With regard to the petitioner's circus performances, the director's decision stated: 
None of the events identified were orchestrated specifically to exhibit the work of the [petitioner]. 
Further, none of the evidence identifies the [petitioner] by name. Rather, segments of the Ringling 
Brothers Circus involve the performance of the Cossack Troupe within the Ringling Brothers, 
Barnum and Bailey Circus. Therefore, according to the evidence, the petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he competed and judged for the Azerbaijan Gymnastics Federation, but 
there is no evidence showing that his role for this organization was leading or critical. The petitioner also 
submitted evidence of his employment with the Russian State Circus Company as a member of the Dzhigits 
of Azerbaijan and with Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey as a member of the Igor Kassaev Riders. 
The letters of support from representatives of these distinguished circuses do not indicate that his role for the 
circuses was leading or critical. The petitioner's evidence fails to demonstrate how the petitioner's role 
differentiated him from the other performers in his riding troupes, let alone the other entertainers who 
performed different circus acts. For example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's name 
frequently received top billing in the circus or that the popularity of his riding troupes increased when he was 
known to be performing. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he was responsible for the preceding 
organizations' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & 
Bailey stating that he earns "$650 per week." The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence showing that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to 
others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him 
Page 12 
among the highest paid circus performers in the United States or any other country. As such, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of 
a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
The record reflects that CIS approved at least three P-1 nonirnmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the 
petitioner to perform as a member of an internationally recognized entertainment group. These prior approvals do 
not preclude CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different standard. It must be noted that 
many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 
2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because CIS 
spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant 
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also 
Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior 
approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of {he 
petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligbility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientoloay International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of 
the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aj'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 
122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be with the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligbility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(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. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.