dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20055457 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 13, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a dance instructor , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which she must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those indivi duals 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 demonstra te recognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationa lly 
recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation that 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 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. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
( 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 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), she 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 determined that the 
Petitioner fulfilled the following two criteria: judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for three 
additional criteria . After reviewing the record, the Petitioner did establish that she meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 1 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she "has contributions of major significance to the DanceSport 
industry of the State of las well as the United States, by virtue of being a competitive coach for 
highly successful dancers, who have won prestigious national and international ballroom dance 
championships and international dance events from 2009 till present." Specifically, the Petitioner 
cites to three reference letters discussing her work with students. I !described the 
Beneficiary's coaching of I "who at the I lbecame a cham ion of the country and 
since did not lose that title in any of the age-groups." Likewise listed various students 
of the Beneficiary and stated that "they are Champions of and winners of top places in such 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis .gov/policymanual /HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that 
although funded and published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of 
major significance). 
2 
prestigious international dancesport competitions." Similarly, mentioned several 
topics the Beneficiary covered at the Dance Academy and opined that her "students are 
amongl I most outstanding competitive dancers, who have achieved impressive success at the 
most important international level competitions in dancesport," and "[t]he results that [the Petitioner's] 
students achieved at these prestigious international competitions, placing as high as in top 10 and top 
15, validated the decision to trust them with the role ofrepresentatives in our country." Further 
I lstated that "our academy's training camps led by [the Petitioner] have resulted in significant 
improvement in our student's performance and have invited increased interest toward our Academy's 
work." 
The Petitioner also contends that her "work also impacted the DanceSport industry of the United States 
for a sustained period of times, starting 2018 through the present, as evidenced by the accomplishments 
of her students at DanceSport Club." She references a letter from I and 
who indicated that the Petitioner "has been coaching us and supervising our 
training process at Dance Sport Club since the middle of 2019, making a great contribution 
to our achievements." 
In this case, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the personal achievements of her students represent 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, the letters do not articulate how 
the Petitioner has impacted the overall field beyond the schools at where she taught or the students 
with whom she coached. 2 Furthermore, while the letters list various dance finishes of her students, 
they do not elaborate and explain the significance of these placements in the field or how the 
Petitioner's coaching of these students to various finishes rises to the level of original contributions of 
major significance consistent with this regulatory criterion. Although the letters praise the Petitioner 
for her coaching abilities, they do not show how the Petitioner has impacted the field in a majorly, 
significant manner. 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact that the Petitioner's work has had in the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how 
an individual's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. 3 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 4 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). We note that her contributions to the dance schools and 
academies are more applicable to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(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). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
4 Id. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, a(J'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
3 
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). 
For the first time on appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion. However, we will not 
consider new eligibility claims or evidence in our adjudication of this appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required 
evidence and given a reason opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not 
consider evidence submitted on appeal of any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based 
on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). 5 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that her salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 6 In his decision, the Director stated 
that while the Petitioner initially submitted a letter from an accountant certifying the Petitioner's 
employment as a ballroom dance coach earning an hourly rate of 2 260 and the minimum wage in 
is 29.12, "there is no indication of the minimum wage data is for professionals in [the 
Petitioner's] field or the minimum wage in the country of in general." Further, the Director 
indicated that the Petitioner submitted short-term payments, a report from btl.gov reflecting hourly 
and monthly data of workers from 1997 - 201 7 rather than from dance instructors, and a report from 
indeed.com showing the average salaries of dance instructors in the United States rather than high 
salaries. In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not offer any supporting financial 
documentation, such as payroll record or income tax forms, demonstrating the Petitioner's actual 
earnings for any given time. 
In respondinJ to the Petitioner's RFE documents, the Director indicated that the Petitioner submitted 
a U.S. Dollar FX Spot Rate chart from 2014-2021 and a list of wage recipients in 2014 
from the OL-SI Association for Promoting Ballroom Dancing inl I for four other 
individuals. The Director further stated: 
[The Petitioner] also submitted a printout from plando.co of the OL-SI accounting 
system showing [the Petitioner 
worked 
150 hours in 2014 and a SalaryExpert report 
showing Dance Teachers i earn an average (not high) salary range from 63,598 
yr to 74/350 yr. This evidence establishes that [the Petitioner] earned a higher 
salary than other instructors at OL-SI but it does not establish that [the Petitioner has] 
earned a significantly high salary in relation to others in the greater field. We must also 
note that in criterion V, the letter from I I indicates that [the 
5 The Petitioner did not assert eligibility for this criterion either at the initial filing of the petition or in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
4 
Petitioner] found OL-SI and it would stand to reason that [the Petitioner] would earn a 
higher salary that others within the organization. Further [ the Petitioner] did not submit 
any information to show how many hours the other instructors worked compared to 
[the Petitioner]. 
The Director also indicated that the Petitioner provided her OL-SI payroll statements for 2016 - 2018 
and reports for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics choreographers for 2016 - 2018 and found: 
According to [the Petitioner's] payroll statements from OL-SI [the Petitioner] earned 
only $1,471.10 higher than the lowest wages in 2016, $3852 higher than the lowest 
wages in 2017, and $6,384 less than the lowest wages in 2018 according to the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Further we must note that [the Petitioner] seek[s] to enter 
the United States as a Dance Instructor. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 
[the Petitioner] provided are for occupations of Choreographers. While the two [] 
occupations are related a Dance Teacher generally teaches how to execute dance steps 
while a Choreographer teaches a string of movements to do with accompanying music 
for a performance. Thus, [the Petitioner has] not established that [she] meet[s] this 
criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence "[t]o overcome these contentions." Again, we 
will not consider new evidence that was not previously presented before the Director. See Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. In this case, the Director evaluated the 
offered evidence and correctly determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she commanded 
a high salary in relation to other dance instructors. As discussed bby the Director, the Petitioner 
presented eevidence comparing her wages to the minimum wages in to the average wages in 
to the average wages of dance instructors in I and limited to the wages of others at OL-
SI. 7 The Petitioner did not compare her salary to the high salaries of dance instructors inl I 
showing that she commands a high salary. Both precedent and case law support this application of 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) 
(considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. 
Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for 
those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 
965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. 
INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary 
of other NHL defensemen). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
7 In addition, although she used her wages in she submitted comparable evidence to the wages of dance instructors, 
as well as choreographers, in the United States. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing that persons 
working in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that country, 
rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high 
in the United States). 
5 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petitions 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 Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41. 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. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, 
at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 8 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve this issue. 9 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes 
do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
(citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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, 
8 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(3). 
9 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26 (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make 
findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n. 7 ( declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 
and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient 
evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7