dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

(b)(6)
1!- . . "f. 
/~ . 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
Washine:ton. DC 20529-2090 
. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: FEB 0 4 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Fll..E: 
IN~: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the ·Jaw in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that' you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
owntL 
Rosenberg 
Actmg Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
i . 
) 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a competitive dancer and dance teacher in the field of Dance 
Sport. The director determined that .the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary 
ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international 
acclaim. The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he will 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "exterisive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section i03(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through eyidence of a one-time 
·achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of eviden~e to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (vii), and (viii) and that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. For the reasons discussed .below, the AAO will uphold the 
director's decision. 
I. LAW 
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 followmg 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 
(b)(6)Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into· the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking ~grant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability .. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. /d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)' requir~s that the pehttoner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the .submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition flied under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised m a 
subsequent "fmal merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper l.mderstanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to 
satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 1122 
(citing to~· C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a fmal merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unil~terally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
(b)(6)Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted information printed from indicating that he and 
his partner placed between 12th and 77th in various _ 
International Open Standard competitions. The petiti~ner also submitted information printed 
from indicating that he and his partner placed 2nd in heat number 
from 
of the 
dance level at the 
in December 2011 ; online results from the 
indicating that he and his partner placed 3rd in heat number of the 
dance level in April 2011; information printed 
indicating that he and his partner placed 2nd in heat number 
dance level at the 
in February 2012; online results from the 
indicating that he and his partner placed 3rd in the fmal round of the 
' category; and online results from the 
indicating that he and his partner placed 3rd in heat number 
dance level in April 2011. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted a heat arrangement sheet from the 
number 10. 
listing the petitioner and his partner at number 28 and a document from the 2005 
competition listing the petitioner and his partner at 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner received "prizes or awards" from 
the preceding _competitions and that his prizes and awards were nationally or internationally 
recogni~ed in his field of endeavor. A competition may be open to dancers from throughout a 
particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that a specific 
award from the contest is "nationally or internationally recognized." The plain language of the 
regulation at 8-C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally 
or international~.)' recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element 
of this criteripn. The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that his awards were 
recognized beyond the presenting organizations and therefore commensurate with nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a February 21, 2012 letter from counsel stating that the petitioner 
placed "1st in the Ballroom Competition" (2007), "2nd as 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
''3rd in the Ballroom 
Championship" (2004), and "1
51 
in the Championship 
in Hungary" (2002), but the petitioner failed to submit evidence of his "prizes or awards" from 
the competitions. Without documentary evidence to support the preceding claims, the assertions 
of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions . of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of bbaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Further, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l). In addition, the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
In light of the ab~ve, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements · of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner is a member of the World Dance Sport Federation (WDSF), 
but the petitioner failed to submit his membership credential for the federation. As previously 
discussed, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. at 534 n·.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. Further, going on record without supporting 
. documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of So.ffiei, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l). In addition, the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. Regardless, there is no evidence showing that the WDSF 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The oetitioner submitted a February 2, 2009 letter from 
stating that the petitioner is a 
member of the council. There is no documentary evidence (such as bylaws or rules of admission) 
showing that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the National Dance Teachers Association of America 
(NDT AA) stating that he "is a member in good standing." The petitioner also submitted 
information printed from the NDT AA' s website discussing the "purpose" of the association, but 
(b)(6)Page6 
he failed to submit evidence showing that the NDT AA requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he is a registered member of the National Dance 
Council of America (NDCA). The petitioner also submitted general information about the 
NDCA and its history, but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the NDCA 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted his registration card for the World Dance Council (WDC) identifying 
him as an "International Competitor" and the "Cqmpetition Rules" for the WDC. Page 13 (item 
1) of the WDC Competition Rules states: ' "All invitations to couples to compete in 
championships granted recognition by the World Dance Council must be sent to Member 
Organizations who must nominate their best available couples." The preceding statement relates 
to invitations "to compete in championships" granted recognition by the WDC rather than to 
designation as an "International Competitor" in the WDC. The WDC Competition Rules 
submitted by the petitioner do not specifically define the requirements for the "International 
• I 
Competitor" designation. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the WDC requires 
outstanding achievements of its "International Competitors," as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field. · 
Furthermore, even if the AAO were to fmd that the petitioner's "International Competitor" 
designation in the WDC meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which the AAO has not, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "membership in 
associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. ·Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so 
as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form 
of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret 
significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C . . Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent 
degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic 
credentials). As the petitioner has failed to demonstrate membership in more than one 
association requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts, he does not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page7 
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 of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefote, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this ·criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
fmdings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his participation in ·various dance sport competitions as 
e~idence for this regulatory criterion. The director's decision stated: 
The evidence must show that (1) it is the petitioner's work and (2) it was displayed at an 
"artistic" exhibition or showcase. 
The plain language of this criterion reveals that it relates to the visual arts, such as sculptors 
and painters, rather than to competition .... Virtually every athlete "displays" his or her 
work in the sense of competing in front of an audience. The petitioner has not established 
that his participation in competitions compares to the artistic showcases contemplated by the 
regulation for visual artists. 
' 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "dancing at a competition" constitutes "the display of dance skills" 
and that USCIS is "misrepresenting the clear language of the regulations." The AAO notes that the 
petitioner's results in dance competitions have · already been addressed under the category of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Neither the petitioner nor counsel has explained how 
competitive dance performances, equate to visual art "exhibitions or showcases." The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence of the display of 
the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The petitioner is a ballroom 
dancer. When he is dancing in competition or performing at a charitable event, he is not 
(b)(6)PageS 
l . 
displaying his work in the same sense that a painter or sculptor displays his work in a gallery or 
museum. The petitioner is performing his work, he is not displaying his work. In addition, to 
the extent that the petitioner is a competitive ballroom dancer, it is inherent to his occupation to 
compete and perform. The AAO notes that the 
ten criteria in the regulations are designed to 
cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. The interpretation that 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a 
federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-eV-820-EeR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 
2008) (upholding an .interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible 
pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 e.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the 
alien is responsible for the success or standing of the organization. · 
The petitioner submitted a February 2, 2009 letter from 
stating: 
On behalf of the member of 
woe I certify that the professional dancer [the petitioner] is the member of our council. 
He is skilled and trained very well. With his dance partner together, they are the best 
professional dancers of in standard division. 
On :mm~::~l, counsel asserts that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for the 
There is no documentary evidence ·showing that the has a distinguished 
reputation. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Further, while the petitioner and his partner may have represented 
in the standard division at woe sanctioned dance competitions. the brief letter from 
is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's role for the was leading or 
critical to the organization ~ a whole. letter fails to provide inf?rmation regarding the 
petitioner's specific duties and responsibilities as a council member, or information indicating 
the importance of the petitioner's role relative to that of the other members. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The 
petitioner failed to submit an organizational chart or similar docwnentary evidence to demonstrate 
where his membership position in the fit within the overall hierarchy of the council. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not differentiate him from other members of the 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
council so as to demonstrate his leading role and fails to establish that he was responsible for the 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "critical role." 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence 
that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished "organizations or 
establishments" in the plural. As previously discussed, the use of the plural is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, even if 
the petitioner were to submit documentary evidence showing that his role and the 
reputation meet the elements of this regulatory criterion, which he has not, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of a leading or critical role for more 
than one distinguished organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has no.t established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
C. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The .record reflects that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petition for an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. Although the words "extraordinary 
ability" are used in the Act 
for classification of artists under both the nonimmigrant 0-1 and the first 
preference employment-based immigrant categories, the statute. and regulations define the term 
differently for each classification. Section 101(a)(46) of the Act states, "The term 'extraordinary 
ability' means, for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction." The 
0-1 regulation reiterates that "[ e ]xtraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standard than that required for the immigrant 
classification, which defmes extraordinary ability as "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 evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also differ in several 
respects, for example, nominations for awards or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 eligibility, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant classification requires actual receipt of nationally 
or internationally recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear statutory 
and regulatory distinction between these 
two classifications, the petitioner's receipt of 0-1 
nonimmigrant classification is not evidence of her eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability. Further, the AAO does not fmd that an approval of a nonimmigrant visa 
mandates the approval of a similar immigrant visa. Each petition must be decided on a case-by-case 
basis upon review of the evidence of record. -
It must be noted that many I-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 Brothers Co. 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I-
(b)(6)
Page 10 
129 nonimmigrant petitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are 
simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d. at 29-30; see also 
Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed .. Appx. 556 (5th Cir. 2004) (fmding that prior approvals do 
not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
the alien's qualifications). 
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 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Eng'g Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 
(1988). 
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 has approved a 
nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
III. CONTINUING WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE IN THE UNITED STATES 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may inClude letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the petitioner detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United States. 
/d. The petitioner initially submitted a list of competitions in which he expected to participate 
from March 2009 to February 2012. The preceding list did not indicate how the petitioner would 
continue to work as a competitive dancer and dance teacher after February 2012. Further, the 
submitted list. did not comply with any of the specific types of evidence required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an "Offer of 
Employment and Employment Agreement" with , but the document was 
executed on May 15, 2012. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further 
provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." /d. at 176. 
Accordingly, USCIS will not consider job offers extended to the petitioner, or agreements 
executed by him, after March 13, 2012 as evidence to establish his eligibility. The director 
found that the petitioner had failed to submit clear evidence at the time of filing showing that he 
would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
(b)(6)
Page II 
On the Form I-290B, counsel ·points to the list of competitions from March 2009 to February 
2012, but as discussed above, the submitted list does not meet the plain language requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) and only covers dates prior to the filing of petition. 
Counsel also points to the petitioner's "Offer of Employment and Employment Agreement" with 
The preceding document, however, is dated May 15, 2012, more than two 
months after the petition was filed. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
According} y, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner had not submitted clear 
evidence at the time of filing demonstrating that he would continue to work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at Jeast three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a fmal merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has ·sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or .her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a fmal merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
/d. at 1122. · 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The AAO may deny an application or petition that fails to ·comply with the technical 
requirements of the law even if the Service 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 1025, 
3 As previously stated, the AAO mainta.ins de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, at 145. 
In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a fmal merits determination as the office that 
made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii) . See also section 103(a)(l) of th~ Act; section 204(b) of 
the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150 .1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.J(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6). . 
Page 12 
1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden.· Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dis~ssed.