dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance And Choreography

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. C~t~zensh~p and Imm~grat~on Semces 
ider.ti%i~a da+r d^a~??d to 
 Office of Admznutratlve Appeals MS 2090 
preve:l.t sk2;!)! c;.? ;.TG~;L~ J 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of pzrsoz~i privac~ 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 3 2 2009 
LIN 07 245 54288 
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. tj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&Wfll(L 
/' ohn F. Grissom 
p~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
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. tj .1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in dance and choreography. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3). In addition, the petitioner claims that the director gave him a "very limited time" to 
respond to the Request for Evidence ("RFE") and denied his request for an extension of time with no 
explanation. With regard to the director's issuance of an WE, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
4 103.2(b)(8)(iii) permits USCIS to request additional evidence to be submitted "within a specified 
period of time as determined by USCIS." As the regulations do not mandate any specific minimum 
period of time in which to afford a petitioner the opportunity to respond to an RFE, the petitioner's 
argument is not persuasive. Further, 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8)(iv) indicates that a petitioner may not be 
granted additional time to respond to an WE. It is noted that even if the director had committed a 
procedural error by failing to provide the petitioner additional time in which to respond to the WE, 
it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The petitioner had 
the opportunity to supplement the record on appeal as of July 10,2008 (more than five months after 
the WE was issued), and therefore it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply to 
afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. 
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 following 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 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 or her 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 sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 23, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a dancer and choreographer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
To fulfill this criterion, the petitioner initially submitted the following documents: 
1. A Labour Book, dated January 2, 1999, indicating that the petitioner moved to the Georgian 
Song and Dance State Ensemble "Kutaisi," as a dancer of the highest category, 15th; 
2. A First-Degree Diploma dated December 29, 2005 for the petitioner's participation in a New 
Year's concert in the Kutaisi Opera and Ballet Theatre; 
3. A diploma for the The Bukhuti Darakhvelidze Prize, dated April 16, 2006, from the Union of 
Choreographers of the Republic of Georgia given to the petitioner for winning the regional 
competition of the Georgian National Dances; 
4. A diploma indicating the petitioner's receipt of a "Golden Eagle - 2005" Medal and "Golden 
Eagle" Diploma for his choreography of the Dance company "Sonari" as a Laureate of the New 
Stars of the New Century Music Festival "Golden Eagle;" 
5. A reference letter fiom the Art Managers and Conductor of the Georgian Song and Dance 
Ensemble, dated November 6, 2007, stated that the petitioner is a "grand prix holder of the 
International Festivals held in Palma-de Maliorka, Spain and Agrigento, Italy" and a newspaper 
article, without a date or source indicated, entitled "Georgian Spirit, Georgian Heart, History of 
the Boy from Tkibuli" which similarly noted that the petitioner is a "grand-prix holder of the 
intemational festivals held in Palrna-de-Maliorka and Agrigento, Italy;" 
6. A certificate fiom the Mamuka Aslanikashvili Youth Palace dated November 28, 1996 for the 
petitioner's successes gained at the Georgian 5th Folk Dance Republican Festival; 
7. A certificate, dated May 23, 1994, confirming that the petitioner completed the full academic 
course of Tkibuli Choreographic Studio; 
8. A certificate, dated November 11, 1996, fiom The Republican Center of Folk Creative Work 
and Culture at Georgian Minishy of Culture for the petitioner's participation in the 3" 
Republican Competition with Dance "Kartu1i;" 
9. A reference letter from the Art Managers of the Ensemble "Bagrati" stating that the petitioner 
was a soloist in the 1999 performance at the Dijon World Folk Festival in France for which he 
and his ensemble won a silver medal; and 
10. A certificate, dated 1998, fi-om the Head of Tkibuli Department of Education awarding the 
petitioner as a part of the best dance couple of Secondary School No.1 for successes gained in 
the Pupils' Amateur Collectives. 
After a review of the initial evidence submitted, the director issued an WE dated February 1, 2008. 
In the WE, the director notified the petitioner that the evidence provided was insufficient to filfill this 
criterion. More specifically, the WE requested documentation including, but not limited to, evidence 
explaining the reputation of the organization granting the award, the significance of the award, and the 
criteria used to select the recipient, as well as evidence documenting the number of competitors for each 
award. In response to the WE, the petitioner provided a reference letter from the Director of Vasadze 
Kutaisi State College of Culture and Education that stated the petitioner completed a full course of 
college, and then went on to work in a choreography studio where he taught for the college. He further 
stated that the petitioner founded an ensemble which became famous in the region and the whole 
Republic. 
The director, in his decision dated June 1 1,2008, stated that the record lacked evidence of the "prestige" 
of the awards given to the petitioner and of the festivals in which he participated. Additionally, the 
director found that the petitioner failed to establish the awards he reviewed brought him national or 
international acclaim as a dancer or choreographer. On appeal, the petitioner provided no new 
evidence. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to provide evidence showing that 
these prizes constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the 
petitioner's field, such as supporting evidence showing the prestige associated with receiving the 
awards or some other evidence consistent with national or intemational acclaim at the very top of the 
field. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204,5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires 
that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and 
places the burden on him to establish every element of this criterion. Further, item 3 is a regional 
competition or was based on his winning a regional competition and item 10 represents an award 
won by the petitioner in secondary school. Neither of these items can be equated with nationally 
recognized awards. The record lacks general information about the competitions, such as the New 
Century Music Festival or Dijon World Folk Festival, such as the award criteria, the area from where 
participants were drawn, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type 
of recognition to demonstrate the national or international recognition associated with being awarded 
a prize at these festivals. In addition, items 2, 7 and 8 only reference the petitioner's participation in 
various competitions or completion of schooling, and do not indicate that he won a prize or award. 
This evidence, therefore, cannot be considered for this criterion. Finally, it is noted that the 
newspaper article discussed in item 5 does not contain a date and that items 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are 
all dated over ten years ago and such a lapse in time would be insufficient to demonstrate sustained 
national or international acclaim in the petitioner's field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication or broadcast, 
or from a publication printed in a language that the vast majority of the country's population cannot 
comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but 
would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community 
papers.' 
The petitioner submitted a single newspaper article, without a date, author or source indicated, entitled 
"Georgian Spirit, Georgian Heart, History of the Boy from Tkibuli." In his WE, the director requested 
the name of the publication in which the article appeared and documentary evidence of the publication's 
significance, such as its readership or circulation. In addition, the director specifically requested the 
petitioner provide the date and author. The petitioner responded to the WE by providing a reference 
letter purportedly from the publisher of the newspaper, "Tkibulis Droit." The letter states, 
[Tlhe newspaper of the LTD "Tkibulinformi" "Tkibulis Droit" was established in 2005 
year. The newspaper is administrative, published in Georgia - municipality of Tkibuli 
with a high circulation. 
' Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
In his decision, the director found this additional evidence was insufficient to overcome the deficiencies 
with regard to this criterion also noting that a single article is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
highly restrictive classification. On appeal, the petitioner provided no new evidence. However, in his 
brief, he clarified that the term "administrative" referred to in the letter means that the publisher is the 
city's municipality. 
The petitioner failed to provide the date, author and publication name with the original document. This 
criterion specifically requires an author and date. As the petitioner failed to provide the requisite 
evidence for the article, it is not considered probative and is therefore, insufficient to establish the 
petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. The date and the author of the article were never provided in 
response to the RFE or on appeal despite the director's specific request. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit evidence such as circulation statistics showing that the 
article submitted by the petitioner was printed in professional or major trade publications or some 
other form of major media. Further, regional coverage or coverage in a publication read by only a 
small ethnic segment of a country's total population is not indicative of national or international 
acclaim. The article appears to have been published in a regional newspaper of the Tkibuli 
municipality, rather than a nationally or internationally circulated publication. Although the 
newspaper's publisher states that its publication is in "high circulation," it is unclear whether this 
refers to high circulation among the region or throughout the country. Moreover, the publisher's 
claim that his paper is in "high circulation" is not supported with any other evidence to substantiate 
its validity. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of specijcation for which classij?cation is 
sought. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner failed to submit evidence regarding this criterion. However, in 
response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a reference letter from the Director of Vasadze Kutaisi 
State College of Culture and Education stating that the petitioner completed a full course of college, and 
afterwards worked in a choreography studio where he taught for the college. In his letter, the Director 
of the College wrote that the petitioner: 
[Hlas been invited many times as a member of jury in Regional Contests. He is 
characterized as a hgh-qualified specialist in the field of choreography. 
Although the director found this evidence insufficient to satisfy this criterion, the petitioner failed to 
provide any new evidence on appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
Page 7 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to hlfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "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. 4 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for top 
choreographers andlor dancers is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for 
youth or novices. 
The petitioner also failed to submit any primary documentary evidence of his participation as a judge 
other than the reference letter that generally states that the petitioner judged "Regional Contests," 
with no reference to any specific contest. Moreover, as detailed above, a regional competition is of 
less evidentiary value than proof of acting as a judge in a national competition. The fact that the 
petitioner evaluated regional contests is not indicative of the evidence required for this highly 
restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner initiaI1y submitted four reference letters that discuss his performances. He submitted 
a letter from a restaurant owner, who said that the petitioner performed for the 
opening of her restaurant on November 23, 2006. She noted that it was such a "great success with 
the Philly public and Georgian community," that the petitioner now performs weekly at the 
restaurant. A letter from the Art Manager and Conductor of the Georgian Song and Dance Ensemble 
wrote a letter dated November 6, 2007 stating that the petitioner, with his ensemble, performed in 
many different countries. Similarly, in a letter dated June 18, 2007, Chairperson 
of the Tkibuli Municipality, wrote that the petitioner "participated in Town different cultural and 
social activity." Lastly, a reference letter from the Art Managers of the Ensemble "Bagrati" stated that 
the petitioner performed dances at Kutaisi Choreographic Ensemble "Bagrati" and was a soloist in the 
1999 performance at the Dijon World Folk Festival in France. 
In his WE, the director requested evidence which explains the significance of the competition or 
performance, and the venue in which he performed. No new evidence for this criterion was 
produced in response to the WE or on appeal. However, the petitioner in his appeal brief stated that 
he "participated in many festivals and competitions and earned worldwide fame and recognition, 
especially ensemble Kutaisi which is the second leading ensemble in Georgia." 
The plain language of this criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors 
and painters) rather than for than for performing artists such as the petitioner. It is inherent to the 
performing arts to perform. Therefore, not every performance is a showcase or exhibition of the 
work of every performer. Without evidence that the petitioner's performances were comparable to 
the exclusive artistic showcases that might serve to meet this criterion for a visual artist, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. Moreover, even if his performances were 
comparable, in addition to the record lacking evidence about the actual details of each performance, 
the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence such as the prestige of these festivals or their 
exposure on a national or international level as evidence indicative of this highly restrictive 
classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a Labour Book, dated January 2, 1999, indicating that he advanced to the 
Georgian Song and Dance State Ensemble "Kutaisi," as a dancer of the highest category, 15". He also 
submitted a reference letter from the Art Managers of the Ensemble "Bagrati," stating that the petitioner 
was a soloist in the 1999 performance at the Dijon World Folk Festival in France for which he and his 
ensemble won a silver medal. 
The director requested additional information in his RFE including documentary evidence showing 
the petitioner played a leading or critical role in the ensembles for which he was a member. In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner's brief argued that soloist means leading. The director in his 
decision points out that although the reference letter indicates the petitioner was a soloist, the 
evidence fails to demonstrate that the petitioner was the only soloist to perform during the ensemble 
and to specify how a soloist dancer provides a leading or critical role in comparison to the other 
dancers. No new evidence was submitted on appeal. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The position should also be of such significance 
that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Although the petitioner provides evidence of his soloist 
performance in an ensemble and his advancement in an ensemble to the highest category, he fails to 
show that such positions were commensurate with a leading or critical role. The petitioner has failed 
to provide evidence which distinguishes himself from other performers in his ensemble such that his 
role can be considered leading or critical. 
The evidence further lacks proof that the organizations for which the petitioner served had 
"distinguished reputations." For example, no evidence was included regarding the ensembles' 
background, standing in the community or world, or any other aspect of their reputations. Moreover, 
sustained acclaim cannot be demonstrated through evidence of his participation in ensembles, which 
occurred in 1999, almost a decade prior to the filing of his petition. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, we note the petitioner's submission of photographs and what appears to be an advertisement 
pamphlet. The petitioner does not explain this evidence or identify the criterion, if any, to which this 
evidence relates. It is further noted, that even if the petitioner provided an explanation regarding this 
evidence, the evidence itself is not probative. First, as it relates to the photographs, the petitioner has 
not provided any dates or captions to describe the occasion documented in the photograph. Second, 
as it relates to the pamphlet, the material is not in the English language and is unaccompanied by the 
translation required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is of no probative value 
and will not be considered in the proceeding. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 top 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 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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 dismissed.