dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance And Choreography

MA TIER OF A-Z-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 24, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PET,ITIONER FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dance coach and choreographer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the·Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had a one time achievement or met at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria under this classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that she satisfies at least three of 
the evidentiary 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, busine~s, 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." s·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 
.
Maller of A-Z-
sustained acclaim and the 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 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in an_d of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 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. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp . 2d 1339 (W.D . Wash.2011), aj('d, 683 
F.3d. HBO (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) _ examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at Jeast three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a dance coach and choreographer. · Because she not indicated or established that she 
has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Upon a review of the record in its entirety, we 
concur with the Director's finding that she has served as a judge of the work of others in an allied 
· field, thus satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation _uf !he individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h )(3)(i) 
In her decision, the Director found that none of the certificates for awards at dance competitions that 
were submitted by the Petitioner demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion, because they were 
issued to dance teams or other individuals, not the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
because she acted as the choreographer, coach and mentor for the teams and individuals who won 
these awards, she should also receive credit for the awards. However, the plain language of this 
criterion indicates that it requires documentatiqn of the Pelilioner ·s receipt of prizes or awards. 
The awards were given to individual dancers a·nd dance groups for their performance, not to the 
Petitioner for her role as a choreographer. Despite the Petitioner's assertion that the award 
certificates specifically identify her as the creative director of --~---- only one does 
2 
.
Matter of A-Z-
so, awarding first place to at the 
Even if we were to consider this award as belonging to both 
the Petitioner and her dance group, the evidence does not establish that this award is nationally or 
internationally recognized. The remaining certificates which name her were given in appreciation of 
her and her school's participation in various festivals. These certificates do not qualify as prizes or 
awards for excellence as a choreographer. Therefore, the Petitioner does , not satisfy the requirements 
of this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is ought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or jLelds. 8 
C.F.R. '§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate which indicates that the dance school, under the 
direction of the Petitioner, is a member of the Notably, 
the certificate does not indicate that the Petitioner is herself a member of . The evidence 
submitted from website indicates that there are three types of membership: "main" and 
"temporary," both of which are for organizations '. only, and "contact person" for individuals. A letter 
from the President of submitted on appeal, confirms that it is the dance school, not the 
Petitioner, which is a member of Therefore, this evidence does not establish that the 
Petitioner is a member of an association in her field. 
In addition, even if the Petitioner was a member of the evidence does not establish that the 
association requires outstanding achievements' of its individual members. The organization's 
website also indicates the requirements for membership, which for organizations with "main" status 
includes fulfilling "all financial and administrative formalities for membership," and for "contact 
person" amounts to only an application and "fi,nancial obligations." While the letter from 
submitted on appeal indicates several criteri~ for "main" membership, including "significant 
achievement in the field of choreography," there is no indication of any additional requirements for 
admission as a "contact person." Accordingly, we concur with the Director's decision that the 
Petitioner does not satisfy this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the alien ·s work in the field for which class(/ication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In her decision, the Director found that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the radio 
and television interviews of the petitioner qualified under this criterion as "other major media." On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from the 
which confirms that the two radio stations which broadcast interviews of the 
Petitioner, and ' "are major Russian radio stations, which have millions 
of listeners each day." Another letter from the Executive Manager of the 
' 3 
.
Matter of A-Z-
confirms that Europe Plus is the largest radio station in the Russian Federation , and that 
is one of the largest. This evi~ence serves to confirm the previously submitted 
information and establishes that the Petitioner was interviewed by major Russian radio stations and 
discussed her work as the creative director and choreographer of her dance school. Accordingly, she 
meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display <?/' the alien ·s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) i 
This criterion requires that an individual's artistic work be on display at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. While the Director concluded otherwise, the record contains sufficient evidence which 
demonstrates that the Petitioner meets this criterion through her. work as a choreographer for 
and the ensemble. In her brief, the Petitioner notes that the online 
version of Encyclopedia defines choreography as "the art of creating and arranging 
dances." Substantial evidence confirms that she acted in that role for these groups, including the 
above-mentioned certificates of appreciation as well as radio interviews and other media, and that 
these groups performed at various festivals, competitions and concerts. As such , the Petitioner 
meets 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 Director found that while the evidence establishes the Petitioner's leading role for 
it does not establish that the has a distinguished reputation. In her decision, the 
Director noted the certificates of appreciation in the record from various government officials and 
event organizers, but indicated th~t there was no "clear and convincing evidence" that the Petitioner 
had performed in a leading or critical role for ,an organization having a distinguished reputation. 
However, :'clear and convincing" is a higher burden of proof than that required in these proceedings. 
In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 
(AAO 2010). In other words, to be eligible under this criterion, the Petitioner must show that it is 
more likely than not that the organization for which she serves in a leading role, 
, has a distinguished reputation. In addit'ion to the certificates of appreciation noted by the 
Director, on appeal the Petitioner calls attention'.to the numerous awards and prizes received by the 
school at several festivals and competitions, inc;Iuding the in 
2015, and the in , 2015. Upon review, we find that the evidence 
of these awards establishes, by a preponderanc~ of the evidence, that ___ ___ has a 
distinguished reputation. Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Since the Petitioner has provided documentation that meets at least three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.~(h)(3)(i)-(x), we will now evaluate whether she has demonstrated, 
4 
.
Matter of A-Z- · 
by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of choreography, and that her achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
The evidence establishes that the Petitioner has successfully opened, directed and served as head 
choreographer for a dance school in the area, which primarily serves children and amateur 
adult dancers. The Petitioner and her dance school have achieved a certain level of acclaim in the 
area, as evidenced by the Petitioner being interviewed on popular radio stations as well as 
other local media. And the Petitioner's students have won awards at national and international dance 
competitions held in various Russian cities. I~ addition, she has served as a panelist for several 
Russian talent competitions, at least some of which do not appear to be limited to dancers. However, 
the evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim as a choreographer, or that she ranks at the very top of the field. 
For example, the record does not establish that: her work as a choreographer has received critical 
acclaim from other choreographers or experts in'. the dance field. Also, the media attention she has 
received, from mass media rather than professional outlets, has mainly focused on her work as the 
director of with the Sl;lbject of those interviews mainly concerning the 
school's operations and history, upcoming events and programs, and recent competitions rather than 
her work as a choreographer. In addition, the Petitioner states in those intervi_ews that she employs 
several other teachers and choreographers at the dance school. While she has established that she 
plays a leading role for as its founder and director, this evidence serves to deemphasize the 
extent to which that role involves choreography, the field in which she claims eligibility. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner's students have received awards as a group. and as individuals, 
these awards do not generally credit her for any contribution to the winning outcome, and the 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence of having personally received any awards for her 
choreography work. Also, while the Petitioner briefly discusses her previous career as a dancer in 
the course of some of the interviews, the evidence does not indicate that she had any experience as a 
choreographer prior to establishing her dance school in 2010. Finally, the evidence regarding the 
Petitioner's activities as a judge indicates that she critiqued the performance of amateurs, some of 
whom appear to not have been dancers, choreographers or others in an allied field. The Petitioner 
has not established that judging local, amateur, m student competitions is indicative of "that small 
percentage of individuals that have risen to the v~ry top of their field of endeavor." See, e.g., Matter 
of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r, 1994). 
\ 
The totality of this evidence indicates that while the Petitioner has established a successful dance 
school, serving mainly children in the . area, she has not achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim as a choreographer, and is not among the very small percentage of 
choreographers at the top of her field. 
Matter of A-Z-
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the entire record, and for all of the reasons stated in the sections above, we find that 
the Petitioner has not established that she is an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of 
choreography, and is therefore not eligible for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-Z-, ID# 1367839 (AAO July 24, 2018) 
6