dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S-C-J-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrat.ive Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 4, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tango dancer and teacher, 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 )(1 )(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 J-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. , 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he meets at least three of the criteria. 
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 
asclaim 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. 
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 
V 
Matter of A-S-C-J-
requirements .. F~rst, 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). · 
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 ~riteria, 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 has performed and taught at various venues around the world, including the United 
States. As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of _the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1he Director found that the Pet.itioner met the following two criteria: published material under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record contains four 
qualifying articles about the Petitioner in major media. In addition, the record reflects that the 
Petitioner judged a tango competition. Accordingly, we agree with the Director's decision for these 
two criteria. In addition, although the Petitioner never claimed eligibility for this criterion, the 
record shows that the Petitioner has danced and performed at exhibitions thereby satisfying the 
artistic display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Therefore, the Petitioner has established 
that he fulfills at least three regulatory criteria, and we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in 
the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requis,ite. initial .evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim 
and that he is one of the small percentage at· the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
2 
.
Matter of A-S-C-J-
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting his involvement with tango dance for over 
. 25 years. For instance, he performed as part of the 
and === In addition, he danced in the film, and in 
productions such as and Most recently, he participated in 
Further, the Petitioner runs the and has provided instruction at 
· dance schools, such as , and to dance students. As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner had four qualifying articles published about him in major media, judged a competition, 
and performed at various venues. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements 
are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding published· material about him, the Petitioner offered four qualifying articles in major 
media. S,pecifically, the Petitioner presented three articles from Clarin (2002, 2004, and 2007) and 
one article from La Nacion (2007). While the Petitioner provided other documents, such as 
I 
playbills, posters, advertisements, they do not reflect published material about him in professional or 
major trade publications or other media. For instance, he submitted a page from the 
section of the New York Times announcing a tango show at the 
rather than an article from the publication discussing him and his 
work. In addition, the Petitioner's presented approximately 10 other articles about him but did not 
submit supporting evidence establishing that publications they appeared in , such as the Woodstock 
Times and Daily Freeman .. are considered professional or major trade publications or other major 
media.' Instead, the Petitioner's translated material made claims relating to the history and status of 
the publication. For example, a translation for an article from Cronica asserted that "[i]t is one of 
the largest circulated newspapers in the country" and "[i]n 2006 they had a daily circulation of 
58,432 copies." Although the Petitioner provided certified translations, the record does not reflect 
that the foreign language articles contained the translator's assertions. 2 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that four articles published over 10 
years ago are consistent with the. sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly 
· restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. In addition, the commentary for the 
proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )( I )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of 
1 We note that the majority of his evidence did ~ot contain the required title, date, or author of the material. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
· translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
3 
.
Matter of A-S-C-J-
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" 
for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Even considering the totality of 
the other evidence and articles, the Petitioner has not shown that his press coverage is indicative of a 
level of success consistent with being among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As it pertains to his service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian. 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The Petitioner provided 
evidence showing that he served as a judge at the 
in 2017 and 2018, in 2016, and 
in 2011. However, the Petitioner did not establish that his judging 
instances places him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). He did not show, for example, how his judging experience compares to others at the 
top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his recent judging occurrences contribute to a 
finding that he has a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as conternplated by Congress or 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show, for instance, that he garnered wide 
attention from the field based on his work as a tango judge. 
As discussed relating to the artistic display of his work, the Petitioner has performed in a movie, on 
Broadway in New York, New York, and at area festivals. In addition to the performances mentioned 
above, the record indicates that he participated in musicals, such and 
Further, the Petitioner danced in a private tango show with the _ as 
well with orchestras and operas. As it is expected that a tango dancer, such as the Petitioner, would 
exhibit his artistic work in front of audiences, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of his 
work is reflective of acclaim consistent with this classification: While the Petitioner presented 
evidence showing a wicie range of experience from- movies, musicals, shows, and concerts, he did 
not demonstrate, for example, that his work brought wide praise from critics, drew notable crowds, 
raised attendance, or was responsible for the success cir standing of the events.3 The Petitioner's 
evidence does not distinguish his performances or work from others in his field or show that it 
reflects a "career of acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. l 0 1-723 at 59. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidenc:e demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence neither fulfills the requirements of any further 
evidentiary criteria nor contributes to an overall finding that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
' Although the Petitioner has experience a performing artist, he did not claim, nor does the record reflect, commercial 
successes under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
4 
.
Matter of A-S-C-J-
With respect to his contributions to the field, the record contains numerous recommendation letters 
that praise his talents and skills as a tango dancer. For example, a salsa performer 
and instructor, stated that the Petitioner is "one of the world's great living Argentine. Tango 
performers" and "has an innate talent as a dancer." 4 While the authors admire the Petitioner, they do 
not show that he has significantly influenced the field placing him in "that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, although the 
letters credit the Petitioner for working with and teaching other tango dancers, they do not establish 
that he has made contributions that have been of major significance to the greater field. For 
instance, claimed that the Petitioner's "impact of [his] own skills as a professional 
tango dancer really stands out" and "has had a profound influence on [his] personal development as 
a tango professional." Here, the Petitioner did not establish how his impact on , or any 
of his other students, is recognized by the overall field as having been majorly significant consistent 
with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive 
classification. See section 203(b )( I )(A) of the Act. 
Moreover, the Petitioner claimed that his roles as a cast n~ember in various productions mentioned 
above as evidence of his leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how productions and shows 
qualify as "organizations or establishments." Regardless, the Petitioner did not establish that his 
roles have been recognized by the field as being significantly important or viewed as notably 
influential. The submitted documentation, for instance, does not reflect that the Petitioner has 
somehow impacted the field through his work demonstrating attention at a level commensurate with 
those at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(11)(2). In addition, the 
Petitioner's evidence does riot distinguish his performances or work from others in his field or show 
that it reflects a "career of acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. 
The record as a: whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit 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. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is 
no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to 
demonstrate that , he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small 
percentage at the top of his field . See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act ; 8 C .F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). 5 
4 Although we cite to a sample of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)( l)(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether he intends to continue working in the·area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)( l)(A)(ii). 
5 
Matter of A-S-C-J-
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 statu~, 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. Stipp. 2d 22 (O.O.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 
For the reasons discussed above, the P_etitioner has not established his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. · 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-C-.J-, ID# 1982273 (AAO Feb. 4, 2019) 
6