dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

i&e dah dddei[ ta 
p-vent dearly unwmnte$ 
invasi0n ef mmal onlmm 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
EAC 03 210 52403 
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. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
9/ Robert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's reference to other petitions from Eastern European 
nationals was irrelevant to the petitioner's eligibility. Counsel notes that the petitioner's dance partner 
had a petition approved in the same classification. Counsel further asserts that the director erred in 
discounting the petitioner's youth awards. Even if we were to accept counsel's assertions regarding the 
petitioner's awards, which relate to only one of the regulatory criteria, the appeal does not attempt to 
rebut the director's conclusions regarding the remaining regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet 
at least three. 
The director asserted that the Service Center "routinely receives dozens of filings from Eastern 
European nonimmigrant beneficiaries seeking El 1 status as having extraordinary ability as ballroom 
dancers." We concur with counsel that this information is not relevant to the petitioner's eligibility. 
Regarding the petitioner's partner, her petition was initially denied and appealed to this office. On 
August 29, 2002, this office remanded the matter back to the director, noting, according to the copy of 
our decision submitted in this matter, several "shortcomings." The matter was remanded for the 
purpose of requesting additional evidence to support the claims made in connection with that petition. 
Less than a month later, on September 20, 2002, the director approved the petition. That matter is not 
before us, and it is unknown whether additional documentation was requested and submitted according 
to the remand order or whether the petition was approved in error. Regardless, each case is determined 
on its own merits. 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Cornm. 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 (1 988). 
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 had approved a petition on behalf 
of the petitioner's partner based on similar evidence, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. See generally Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001)' cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Finally, counsel relies heavily on a lengthy reference letter. While we will consider the letter below, the 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 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 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority 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 this 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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a dancer. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
Page 4 
recognized award). Prior to appeal, counsel did not assert that the petitioner's awards rose to this level. 
On appeal, however, counsel does not address any of the remaining regulatory criteria, suggesting that 
it may be counsel's position that the petitioner's awards constitute major international recognized 
awards. We will consider the evidence. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted letters from coaches affirming that the petitioner has won significant 
awards and the petitioner's own self-serving list of awards he has won. The petitiqner also sul 
vhotomavhs of medals, vlaaues and trovhies, onlv one of which, a plaque from the 
ears the petitioner's name. 
The director requested additional evidence, noting that at least some of the awards appeared to be fiom 
- 
junior level or youth competitions. In response, 
 President of the National Dance 
Council of America (NDCA), notes that the yout 
 ends at age 21 and, thus, the 
petitioner, at age 20, could only compete in the youth divisions. Mr. -her asserts that the 
petitioner is a United States National Youth Champion and can "go no further" in the United States. 
The petitioner submitted additional photographs of awards that do not bear his name, a 2004 Certificate 
of Achievement that postdates the filing of the petition and Bulgarian youth and junior awards. 
None of the above evidence suggests that the petitioner won a major international recognized prize. 
Rather, the awards appear to be junior level U.S. or Bulgarian awards. While the petitioner appears to 
have competed in a joint U.S/Canadian competition, the record is absent evidence that this is a major 
international recognized award with the prestige of an Olympic medal or Nobel Prize. 
The above evidence will be considered below as it relates to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following 
criteria. 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the evidence relating to awards and prizes discussed above. The director 
concluded that the petitioner's awards were from youth, junior level and amateur rising star level 
competitions and could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel challenges the conclusion 
that junior level awards cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
First, as discussed above, the petitioner has not submitted the primary evidence required to establish 
that he has won the U.S. awards claimed. Photographs of medals, trophies and plaques that do not bear 
Page 5 
the petitioner's name with self-serving captions are insufficient. The record lacks the award certificates 
bearing the petitioner's name or official competition results as published by the competitions' 
organizers or in trade journals. 
Second, the petitioner has not established that dancesport is a sport where competitors peak as 
teenagers. We will not narrow the petitioner's field to dancers his age. Without evidence that he has 
received awards at competitions open to the most experienced and renowned dancers prior to the date 
of filing, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, even if we were to conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion, and we do not, it is only one 
criterion. An alien must meet at least three to be eligible for the classification sought. On appeal, 
counsel makes no attempt to address the director's adverse conclusions regarding the remaining 
criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which class@cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted, without explanation, that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. MrFasserts that the petitioner competed in exclusive 
competitions and was judged by "nationa an international experts." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated his membership in any dance 
organization that requires outstanding achievements of its members. Counsel does not challenge this 
conclusion on appeal. 
We concur with the director. A competition is not an association with a "membership." Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classzfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted foreign language 
newspaper articles with partial translations. The director noted that the petitioner had not provided 
complete translations as required pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and 
that the articles did not appear to be recent. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
We concur with the director. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide any circulation data for the 
publications in which the articles appear. As such, the petitioner has not established that the articles 
appeared in major media. Finally, the partial translations suggest that while the petitioner is mentioned 
by name, the articles are not "about" the petitioner, but the competitions themselves. 
In light of the above, 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 specijkation for which classzfication is sought. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner claims that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record contains 
no evidence relating to it. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted, with no explanation, that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. The director concluded that the record lacked evidence that the 
petitioner had been influential in the field. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 
209 (1 997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1 995). Neither counsel nor the petitioner has explained 
how competing successfully in dancesport is either original or influential in the field such that the field 
has been demonstrably impacted. 
In light of the above, the petitioner had not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record 
contains no evidence relating to it. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that as a competitor in 
major competitions, the petitioner has "showcased" his talents. Mr. repeatedly refers to the 
petitioner's competitions as showcases. 
The director concluded that competing was inherent to the occupation of ballroom dancer and that 
competing did not set the petitioner apart from other ballroom dancers. Counsel does not address this 
conclusion on appeal. 
While dancing can be an art, the petitioner is a dancesport competitor. The record contains repeated 
references to this sport as an eventual Olympic event. As such, it appears that the petitioner is seeking 
eligibility in athletics, not in the arts. Athletic competitions are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Even in the performing arts, it is inherent to the field to perform on stage. Not every performance is an 
artistic showcase or exhibition. The petitioner has not established that he has performed in exhibitions 
designed to showcase select dancers as opposed to athletic competitions. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel stated: "As a champion in major 
competitions in both the United States and Bulgaria, he has won and starred in events that serve as 
evidence that he has ~erforrned in lead and starring roles." Counsel referenced the letter from Mr. 
" 
as evidence of the significance of the competitions. 
 The director rejected this claim. 
not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
Competing, even successfully, is not performing in a leading or critical role for the entity sponsoring 
the competition. At issue for this criterion are the role the petitioner was hired or selected to fill and the 
national reputation of the entity that hired or selected him. We concur with the director that the record 
does not contain evidence relating to this criterion. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record 
contains no evidence relating to it. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record 
contains no evidence relating to it. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
dancer to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a dancer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.