dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 17, 2024 In Re: 31049892 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a dance instructor who seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did she demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a 
petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121 (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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a dance instructor who intends to open her own business in the United States to 
continue in that effort. 
Because the Petitioner 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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed she met four of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied one of the criterion relating to judging, but that she 
had not satisfied the criteria associated with prizes or awards, published material, or under a leading 
or critical role. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meet the evidentiary criteria relating to 
prizes or awards, published material. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude the 
Petitioner does not qualify for this highly restrictive immigrant classification. 
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 did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion, and in response to the Director's 
request for evidence she presented claims relating to two organizations. The Director noted her 
performance for these organizations occurred after she filed the petition, which they would not 
consider in this petition as she must demonstrate she was eligible on the date she filed the petition. 
The Petitioner must establish that she has satisfied all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit from the date she filed the petition continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
USCIS may not approve a visa petition if the Petitioner was not qualified at the priority date but 
expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). These claims 
will not be factored into the proceedings associated with this particular petition. 
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 ofthe material, and any necessmy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 
The Petitioner provided articles from three sources before the Director. The Director discussed one 
publication and determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On 
appeal, the Petitioner points to the two articles the Director did not discuss and claims those adequately 
support her eligibility under this criterion. 
But we do not agree. Even though the articles might be about her and relating to her work in the field, 
she provided inadequate supporting materials to demonstrate the publications are one of the required 
publication types. The Director addressed the Petitioner's claims and evidence pertaining to Jamaica 
Star and them found inadequate and she does not contest that determination on appeal. Considering 
the material relating to The Gleaner, the Petitioner's supporting evidence she offers on appeal relating 
to this media derives from Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no 
assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site. 1 See United 
States v. Lawson, 677 F .3d 629, 650-51 ( 4th Cir. 2012); Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F .3d 909, 910-11 
(8th Cir. 2008); see also Sibanda v. Holder, 778 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2015). 
The material from the Jamaica Observer suffers from a similar shortcoming. The Petitioner provides 
two forms of evidence relating to this publication and the first material is again from Wikipedia. We 
already explained why material from that resource is not reliable and does not meet the Petitioner's 
burden of proof. 
The other documentation for this publication is the Jamaica Observer's Facebook page that contains 
the text: "Jamaica's No. 1 Newspaper" but does not offer any additional information in support of 
that statement. When USCIS evaluates whether a submitted publication is other major media, relevant 
factors include the relative circulation, readership, or viewership that should be compared to other 
similar statistics. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual B.l, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The phrase "other major media" is generally accepted to mean a publication with significant reach and 
recognition, and it follows that we may reasonably require evidence of the same type of reach and 
recognition through circulation data. Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 185 (D. N.J. 2021). 
We are also not required to accept a publication's own claims relating to whether it qualifies as major 
media, as such self-serving claims are not sufficiently probative. Id. (citations omitted). Probative 
evidence is the type that "must tend to prove or disprove an issue that is material to the determination 
of the case." Matter ofE-F-N-, 28 I&N Dec. 591, 593 (BIA 2022) (quoting Matter ofRuzku, 26 I&N 
Dec. 731, 733 (BIA 2016) ); see also Evidence, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Therefore, if 
some form of the Petitioner's evidence does not adequately prove their contention, then it is not 
probative. When combined with other favorable material, evidence that is not probative on its own 
1 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE 
OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows 
anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expe11ise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have 
been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields. Wikipedia: General disclaimer, Wikipedia (Apr. 6, 2024), 
http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Wikipedia: General_ disclaimer. 
3 
could exist on a palette in which the Petitioner "paints a mosaic" that sufficiently demonstrates the 
Petitioner's claims. However, the Petitioner has not crafted such a tapestry here. 
In summary, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the regulation's requirements 
relating to other major media. 
While the Petitioner argues and submits evidence for one additional criterion on appeal relating to 
prizes or awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), it is unnecessary that we make a decision on this 
additional ground because she cannot numerically meet the required number of at least three 
criteria. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve our evaluation of her claims under the prizes or awards criterion. 
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) 
(finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary 
to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676, 677 n.l, 678 (BIA 2023) 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 do not need to 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 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 that goal. 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 the significance of their 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. lO1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their 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. 
4