dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-E-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dance instructor and choreographer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief: arguing that she satisfies at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of S-E-A-
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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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. USCIS, 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). 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 individually 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 dance instructor and choreographer who has taught at several dance studios and 
centers in the United States and Australia. Because she has not indicated or established that she has 
received a major, internationally recognized award, 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 found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, lesser awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner participated as a judge at the 2015 I IN ational 
Talent Competition. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging 
criterion. However, for the reasons discussed later in this decision, we do not concur with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner demonstrated that she satisfied the lesser awards criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets two additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of S-E-A-
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). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, we disagree. Specifically, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate her receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed 
eligibility for this criterion based on the receipt of awards won by her students, as well as awards 
,..lli!.SIJ~M..illtilllL.,(lja.lli::..e....:Sill~ios and centers. For instance, I I CEO and presidr'--e""n=t_o;;..cf'-'----.....J 
, stated that two of the Petitioner's students won "Aurst=r=al=i=a....a'saL..---,..-----' 
ir----,,_f_r_o_m_h___,,.------1N i n 1 D n hamr,iaosbiosl ~ Moreover,.__ ____ _. general 
manager of.__ __________ __,, and I ) assistant general manager for ~ 
listed awards won by the Petitioner's company,'------~----' from 2007 to 2013, including 
"Group Aggregate 13 years and over," "Best Tapping Group," and "Grand Champion Solo 
performer." Further, I I co-founder and director of the I I 
Performing Arts Center, indicated that the Petitioner "has improved the level of technique within our 
school greatly with her extraordinary teaching methods to go on and win the 'Technique Award' at 
the I IN ational Talent Competition I I' and "routines she has choreographed have led 
our students win National Titles in Contemporary and Jazz last July at thel I National Finals 
held inl ~" In addition, the record contains numerous photographs of plaques displaying 
events and categories but not showing the recipients. 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to receive prizes or awards. 2 Moreover, the description 
of this type of evidence in the regulation provides that the focus should be on "the alien's" receipt of 
the prizes or awards, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt of the prizes or awards. 3 Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish that she received the claimed awards. Rather, the record shows awards 
bestowed upon her students or dance studios; the awarding entities did not name the Petitioner as a 
recipient of the awards. 
In addition, this criterion requires the prizes or awards to be nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 4 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for 
granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, but are not limited to, the criteria 
used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in 
the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations of competitors. 5 
Although the Petitioner's evidence makes references to the competitions and events, the 
documentation does not demonstrate that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field. For example, regarding thel I the 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
3 Id. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
5 Id (indicating that an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, may have little national or 
international significance). 
3 
Matter of S-E-A-
Petitioner submitted screenshots froml [com reporting <;rn the 2016 event without showing 
the recognition of the awards in the field. Further, as it relates tol._ ______ __.bffered a brief 
description of the competition but did not provide any detailed information showing the national or 
international recognition of thec=]awards. Moreover, while an unidentified screenshot claimed that 
c=]is Australia's "largest competition of its kind,"I I asserted that the I !National 
Championship is also "Australia's largest and most prestigious dance competition." Regardless, 
neither the screenshot norl ~ letter contains material explaining the national or international 
significance of the0awards. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that thel I awards, 
as well as awards from the I I National Competition, ~-------~ 
Conventions and Competitions, and thd I., are viewed by the field as nationally 
or internationally recognized awards for excellence. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her evidence fulfills the regulatory requirements, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
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). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner's choreographed work was displayed at artistic exhibitions and 
showcases. Accordingly, the Petitioner has shown that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on her roles with the I I II I and~------~ ._A_s_i_t -re-la-te-s-to____.a 
leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding a critical role, 
the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 7 Moreover, this regulatory criterion requires the role to be for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 8 
As it pertains to~ the Petitioner did not initially indicate any employment or role with the dance 
company. 9 However, in response to the director's request for evidence, she submitted a letter from 
I lwho indicated thatc=Jrecently hired her for the role of director in 2017 and had 
subsequently selected the Petitioner as a coach and choreographer for the December 2017"""1 =~~ 
Dance Championships in I I In addition, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from c=Js 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 Id. at 10-11 (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictiona,y definition of"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence). 
9 The Petitioner made no claims of employment or roles withe=] in her cover letter, resume, or any of the submitted 
documentation at the initial filing of the petition on August 25, 2017. 
4 
Matter of S-E-A-
website reflecting that the dance company was founded in 2017. Further, the Petitioner submitted a 
screenshot, dated November 28, 2017, froml I announcing! I as the director and 
head coach and the hiring of the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner offers a "Summary of Oral 
Agreement," dated October 29, 2018, regarding the terms of the Petitioner's employment from 
October 201 7 - December 2025. Here, the documentation relates to events occurring after the filing 
of the petition, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she performed in a role with Dprior to 
the filing of her petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Regarding □ the Petitioner references a letter from I I founder and director of the musical 
theatre course for0 atl I University, who stated that the Petitioner "was selected to design and 
teach the dance program for the only Bachelor of Musical Theatre course of its kind in Australia," and 
"[a]s a founding member of the course, [the Petitioner] paved the way to success for many of our 
students." While I !discussed his reasoning for selecting the Petitioner to start-up a course, 
he did not explain how the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical to Ooverall. 10 Moreover, 
I I did not demonstrate how ldesigling and teaching a co~ that the Petitioner held a 
leadership position or contributed to successes as a whole; L___J indicated the Petitioner's 
impact to the musical theatre course rather thaQin general. 
As it relates to D the record reflects that the Petitioner performed in a leading role as she founded 
and owned the dance company. However, the Petitioner did not establish that D enjoys a 
distinguished reputation consistent with this regulatory criterion. Although the Petitioner argues that 
c=}; students won several awards, as discussed under the awards criterion, she did not demonstrate 
how the awards showOs distinguished reputation. For instance, the Petitioner did not explain the 
significance of the students receiving the awards toD or how the quality or quantity of the awards 
compared to other dance companies. Moreover, the Petitioner references the letter froml I 
who claimed thar9'was attracting dancers from all over Australia to train," and a letter from the 
current owner of _ l, who opined thatO'is still one of the most prestigious performing 
arts schools in the country." However, the letters do not provide specific, detailed explanations to 
support their assertions. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot froml I and 
the above-mentioned screenshot from I lwhich mentioned that is "a leading Performing 
Arts Center in Australia" and "a leading performing arts center on the.__ ___ _, of Australia." 
Again, the articles do not justify their statements fore=] "leading" reputation. Further, the Petitioner 
did not show that two screenshots represent sufficient evidence of Os reputation in the field 
compared to, for example, widespread coverage of the dance company in major media. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies this criterion. 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
5 
Matter of S-E-A-
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 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 Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 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 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in 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 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 for individuals progressing toward the top. 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 section203(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 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). 
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. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
6 
Matter of S-E-A-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-E-A-, ID# 3497197 (AAO June 18, 2019) 
7