dismissed EB-1A Case: Classical Dance

MATTER OF K-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 12,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Chinese classical dancer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, stating that she meets at least 
three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) 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. 
.
Matter of K-L-
I 
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 IS, 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) . 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 "each piece of evidence for relevance , probative value, and credibility, both indiv~ dually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a Chinese classical dancer and tours with the Because 
she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award , 
the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition , the Director found that the Petitioner met only the 
awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that she is contesting three criteria: published material under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) , original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and artistic 
display under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and, 
for the reasons discussed below , we find it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at 
least three criteria. In addition , the Petitioner argues that other principal dancers from the 
have been granted extraordinary ability · status, which is further proof of her 
eligibility. However , the Petitioner's extraordinary ability petition is reviewed on its own merits.
1 
1 Further, we are not bound by decisions of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v: INS, 
No. 98-2855 , 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000) . 
2 
.
Matter of K-L-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record reflects that the Petitioner 
received: (1) the bronze award at 2012 
and (2) an honorable mention award at the 2014 
Based on a review of the record, we will 
withdraw the Director ' s findings for this criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted screenshots from the that references 2012 
The screenshots provide background information regarding the 
competition, such as its history, judging composition, and performing benefits. In addition, she 
presented screenshots from the that mention the founder 
and artistic director of the Further , the Petitioner offered screenshots from 
and relating to a general overview of the television station , noting that it hosts a 
classical dance competition. 
In order to meet this regulatory criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor. The 
Petitioner's documentation, however, does not establish that awards are tantamount to 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in her field. Rather, the supporting 
evid_ence relates to the television station and the sponsorship of the competition. Because the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion , we withdraw the Director's findings . 
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. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that although the Petitioner submitted articles relating to her and her work in the 
and the Petitioner did not establish that they are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media . Specifically, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not provide objective evidence to support the publications' data and 
circulation claims. 2 In support of the appeal , the Petitioner provides two articles regarding the 
; that were posted on and 
2 USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. 
D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine 's status is not reliant evidence of major media). 
3 The Petitioner does not contest the Director 's findings or offer evidence on appeal regarding and 
nor does the record reflect that they are major publications. 
3 
.
Matter of K-L-
The articles, however; do not establish that the is a major medium. Although both 
articles cite to the own statistics, the articles do not verify those figures but instead 
discount the publication's claims regarding its popularity. For instance, the article indicates 
that "[t]he paper is available for a dollar at 70 vendors around though it isn't 
usually a big seller." In addition, the article interviewed several vendors who stated that they sell 
very few copies ·of it. For example, one vendor stated that "[h )e sells about one copy a week, if that, 
which is far less that the sixty or so copies he sells of the For these reasons, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the qualifies as a major medium. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scienf!fic, scholarly, artistic. athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that the Director engaged in a merits determination by looking beyond the 
criterion when he found that her recommendation letters did not show she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. We do not agree with the Petitioner's interpretation. 
Here, the Director reviewed the Petitioner's recommendation letters and decided that they "do not 
contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how [the Petitioner has] made 
original contributions of major significance in the field." On appeal, the Petitioner does not explain 
how the Director's decision "look[ ed] beyond the criterion" or otherwise mandated a higher standard 
or other requirements. 
Regarding her recommendation letters, they generally praise the Petitioner's artistic skills and refer 
to her "unique" and "diverse" talents. In addition, the letters describe her shows with the 
The letters, however, do not explain how her skills and talents and performances 
are considered original contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse or unique 
skill set is not in-and-of-itself a contribution of major significance, unless a petitioner shows that she 
has used those skills to impact or influence the field; in this case, the Petitioner has not made such a 
showing. In addition, although the Petitioner provided playbills and programs of her shows, she has 
not explained how her performances have impacted the field in a significant manner. See Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion 
because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the USC IS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
4 
.
Matter of K~L-
1990). Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
As discussed, the Petitioner has performed at various exhibitions, such as the 
in Canada, as part of the Thus, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the Petitioner 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). 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence in the context of whether it demonstrates that the 
individual "has sustained national or international acclaim" such that she is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements "have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
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, 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the 
office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 
282785, at *2. 
5 
Matter of K-L-
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. / 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-L-, ID# 405119 (AAO July 12, 20 17) 
6