dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance And Choreography

o U.S. Citizenship 
"' and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-V-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 12,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dancer and choreographer, 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that she meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
,, 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 
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 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 
.
Matter ofC-V-B-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence 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 ~ USC IS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 20,13); 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 is a dancer and choreographer who has performed in music videos and at musical 
events with acclaimed artists. 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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that 
the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner contests five 
criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), high salary under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and commercial successes under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 1 We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
satisfies at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
1 awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that her nomination for a at the 2016 
meets this criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner claims 
that "[i]n the context 
1 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the published material criterion under 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
she does not continue to do so on appeal, nor does the record support a finding that she meets it. Accordingly, we will 
not further address this criterion in our decision. 
2 
.
Matter ofC-V-B-
of major award ceremonies [Oscar, Grammy, Tony], a small number of performances and 
productions are selected for nomination to receive major prizes. In other words, the official 
nomination is an award for excellence at the top of the category." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) mentions "a major, international[ly] recognized award," and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." 
Neither regulation refers to a nomination for a prize or an award as acceptable evidence for 
satisfying the respective requirements. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that nominations 
for the are nationally or internationally recognized by showing, for 
instance, that the nominees receive national or international level press coverage. In this case, while 
being nominated is a personal honor for the Petitioner, it falls short of showing "receipt" of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award, as required by this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The record contains letters and other evidence of her involvement in raising mom~y for various 
charitable organizations, such as the and the 
a non-profit organization for girls rescued from sex trafficking . .! In addition, the 
Petitioner has P<l:rticipated at festivals, such as the 
· and Further, she has provided dance class 
classes to students at the The regulation requires the Petitioner to submit 
evidence of her original "contributions of major significance in the field.'.'· While this evidence 
demonstrates her humanitarian work, the Petitioner has not shown how she has influenced or 
impacted her field of expertise at a level that is consistent with original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted recommendation letters that praised her for her skills, talents, and 
abilities.8 For instance, an internationally recognized artist, described the 
Petitioner's skills as "unique," her talents as "unparalleled," and her abilities as "extraordinary." 
Moreover, choreographer for music video, stated 
that the Petitioner's "top tier skills, extraordinary talents, and unique artistic vision would be 
welcome in any of future productions." The letters, however, do not explain how her 
skills and talents, as well as her performances in their music videos, are considered original 
contributions of maj9r significance in the field. Having a diverse or unique skill set is not in-and-of­
itself a contribution of major significance, unless a petitioner shows that she has used those skills to 
influence the field; in this case, the Petitioner has not made such a showing. 
In addition, the 
2 See letter from director for the 
3 See letter from founder and executive director for the 
4 See letter from director for 
5 See letter from president for 
6 See letter from choreographer for 
7 See letter from dean and instructor for 
s While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
.
Matter of C- V-B-
Petitioner has not established how her performances have impacted the ,field in a significant manner. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did-not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') 
conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the 
field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The 
US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9,"15 (D.D.C. 1990). Here, the Petitioner has not met her burden of 
showing that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field ai artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has displayed her work at artistic venues. The record also reflects 
that she performed as one of the dancers for at the 
> Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
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 contends that she has performed in leading or critical roles "for shows and artists of 
distinguished reputation[s]." She provided evidence showing that she was a dancer in music videos 
for various artists, including as and In addition, the 
Petitioner appeared in a documentary and performed as a supporting dancer for award 
shows, such as the and the 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a 
petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. Although 
the Petitioner performed as one of the lead dancers in the music videos, she did not demonstrate how 
her performance in a music video or documentary constitutes a leading role for a distinguished 
organization or establishment overall. Further, the Petitioner has not shown how her capacity as a 
supporting dancer to the featured artists in music videos establishes that she was responsible for the 
successes of organizations or establishments to show that her role was critical for those entities. 
Likewise, the Petitioner has not established how her role as a backup dancer on award shows reflects 
9 See letter from choreographer for 
4 
.
Matter ofC-V-B-
a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salaty or other signtficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ix ). 
-The record contains evidence of her remuneration for her performances at events. Specifically, the 
Petitioner provided contracts showing pre-determined compensation and times. For instance, the 
Petitioner earned: $162 for 4 hours of rehearsal and $316 for a 5-minute show to perform with 
$495 for a 10 minute show at the concert, and $565 for 6 hours to dance for 
In addition, the Petitioner presented a check reflecting that she netted $864 while 
working with The Petitioner also offered evidence regarding the yearly salaries of 
dancers and choreographers, such as screenshots from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
and which widely range from $19,000 to $129,000. However, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence of her cumulative annual wages to provide a basis for 
comparison against the data. Moreover, she has not sufficiently shown how the submitted yearly 
and hourly wage data demonstrates that her short term, isolated contracts represent significantly high 
remuneration for services compared to others in her field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts. as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
As evidence of commercial successes, the Petitioner submitted viewership statistics for other artists 
and television programs. For instance, music video garnered over 
hits, and music video, received 
hits. Moreover, the Petitioner provided documentation showing television 
ratings, such as documentary, received 
viewers, and the 2011 on averaged between and 
people. However, the Petitioner has not established that in her capacity as a supporting or 
background dancer, she was responsible for the "commercial successes" of the music videos or 
television programs. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires commercial successes in the form of 
"receipts" or "sales." The Petitioner's submission of views and television ratings does not 
meet this criterion. Although the Petitioner indicates that the provisions of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4) is a "catch-all provision" and "[t]he reference to cassette sales is obsolete and there is 
no mention of on-line downloads and streaming," the Petitioner must demonstrate that the 
commercial successes criterion does not apply to her occupation in order to contemplate comparable 
evidence, which she has not shown. Even if we would consider downloads and viewership statistics, 
to In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted additional contracts that were signed after 
she filed her petition. 
5 
.
Matter of C- V-B-
they relate to other artists, such as and Therefore , the 
Petitioner has not established that she satisfies this criterion, including through the submission of 
comparable evidence. 
B. Summary 
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 need not 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 that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level_ of expertise required for the classification sought. 
C./ 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, 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. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 199~); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. 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 noni~migrant 
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 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner .has not shown that she qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fC-V-B-, ID# 406110 (AAO July 12, 2017) 
6