dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Depadment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
US. Citbenship 
md Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 03 266 54683 
k -L .. -ui,v 
PETITION: grant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
283(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C, $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision sf 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. 
C y Robert PP. Wiemanam, Director 
Adarministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based idgrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, md is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based i grant purs~~mt to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extaordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acciaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 2031b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified I grants who are aliens 
described in my of the foElowing subparagraphs (A) though (C): 
(A) Miens with Extraordinary Ability. -- h 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 though extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the aea of 
extraordinary ability, md 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the tern "extraordinary ability" means a level sf expertise indicarng 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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 29, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a dancer. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The recold 
reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since 2000. Given the length of time 
between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and this petition's filing date, it is certainly reasonable to 
expect the petitioner to have earned national accPaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has 
had ample time to establish a national reputation as a dancer in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
EntemationaS acclaim though evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten ca-iteria, at least three of which 
- 
Page 3 
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 pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recogaizedprizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from 1997 stating that he "won the First Prize of Youth Group in the 
Second National 'Peach and Plum Cup' Dance Competition of Youth and Teenagers." The petitioner's 
"Youth Group9' prize offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and the most experienced and 
practiced dancers in the field. There is no indication that the petitioner faced competieior? from tbnioughout his 
entire field, rather than only his approximate age group within that field. Such an award is not an indication 
that an individual has reached the "very top of the field of endeavor." 
The petitioner also submitted the English language translation of a "'Ceaificate of Pe ce9' issued in 199 1 by 
the "Organization Committee of '9 1 Chinese Tourist Art Festival and Guangdong Cmival," but the petitioner 
did not submit his original certificate. Nevertheless, tkre is no evidence showing that this certificate is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's 
participation in the '91 Chinese Tourist Art Festival and Guangdong Carnival. 
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.W. $ 103.2@)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Iraamaaiigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The two translations submitted by the petitioner were not certified as 
required by the regulation. 
h this case, the record contains no documentation from the awarding entities or print media to establish that 
the petitioner's awards are nationally recognized perfonring arts awards. Nor is there evidence showing that 
the petitioner has won any significant awards subsequent to 1997. The absence of such awards suggests that 
the petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fieMfor which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or iateraational experts in their disciplines orfields. 
h order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership sequhements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. In addition, it is clear from the 
regulatory language that members mst be selected at the national or international level, rather than the local 
or provincial level. Therefore, membership in an association that evaluates its membership applications at the 
local or provincial chapter level would not qualify. Finally, the overall prestige of a given association is not 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
h response to the director's request for evidence, the petif oner submitted a certificate indicating that he is a 
member of The World Association sf Beauty Cultme. The record, however, does not include the aembership 
bylaws or official admission requirements for this association. There is no evidence showing that admission 
to membership in this association required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by 
national or international expefls in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly articles in theJeld, in professional or major tde 
publications or other major media. 
Hn response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted what he alleges is evidence of his 
authorship sf an article in Beijing Youth Daily. The petitioner provided a "Translation Copy" of the article, 
but he did not submit the original article. There is no evidence showing that this article was actually published 
sander the petitioner's name or evidence of its significant national or international distribution. Nor is there 
supporting evidence showing that the article is viewed thoughout the petitioner's field as significantly 
influential. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits blurred photocopies of what are alleged to be fox photographs of his stage 
performances, but these photos do not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.W. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Ira ths case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least thee of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to estabjish the sustained national or irntem~ational acclaim necessary to qualify as an ahen of extraordindlay ability. 
Review of the record 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 lop of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international levei. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not 
be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.W. 5 204.5(@(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
staternen? from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Senvice Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 102.5, 1043 4E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the abve stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
al~emative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
Page 5 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Mere, that burden has 
not been met. 
OWER: The appeal is dismissed.