dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance And Choreography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-H-INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 19, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a community dance and fitness center, seeks classification for the Beneficiary, a dancer 
and choreographer, as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award or 
met the requirements of at least three of ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the critical role of a choreographer in Bollywood dance and 
film, the genre in which the Beneficiary specializes, was not considered by the Director. In addition, 
the Petitioner asserts that its submission of comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. §204.S(h)( 4) was 
not addressed in the Director's decision. 
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, 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. 
Matter of N-H-Inc. 
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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the 
standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 v. USC IS, 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); Rtjal 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is a dancer and choreographer specializing in what he identifies as a Bollywood 
fusion style of dance. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary 
has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Beneficiary met two 
of these criteria, relating to display of the Beneficiary's work at artistic exhibitions, and his leading 
or critical role for associations with a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Beneficiary, through the submission of comparable evidence, also meets the evidentiary criteria 
relating to membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, and authorship of 
scholarly articles. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director and 
find that the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
Documentation of the 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) 
2 
.
Matter of N-H-Inc. 
The Petitioner initially asserted the Beneficiary's qualification under this criterion based upon three 
annual grants it received from the city of and a scholarship granted to the Beneficiary by 
the On appeal, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's 
finding that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion. After review, we agree that the evidence 
does not establish that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the .field.for which 
classffication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary is a member of any particular association in his 
field. Instead, it initially submitted a letter from a highly decorated Indian 
contemporary dancer and choreographer, who states that "there are no associations or organizations 
requiring outstanding achievements for Indian contemporary dance." Based upon this statement, the 
Petitioner asserts that the submission of comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) should be 
allowed. That regulation allows for the submission of comparable evidence if the listed criteria do 
not readily apply to the Beneficiary's occupation. 1 As an initial matter, statement that 
qualifying associations do not exist for "Indian contemporary dance" is insufficient to establish that 
this particular criterion does not readily apply to the Beneficiary's occupation of "lead dancer and 
choreographer," as identified on the Form 1-140. Further, the comparable evidence regulation does 
not focus on a single criterion, but requires that the Petitioner explain why it has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the listed criteria.2 The Petitioner has not provided such 
an explanation, and we note that it initially claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility under seven of the 
ten criteria. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it may submit comparable 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the submitted evidence is "comparable" to that 
required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In its brief accompanying the initial filing, the Petitioner 
indicates that it is submitting two types of comparable evidence: the "breadth and depth" of the 
Beneficiary's work as a dancer and choreographer, and recommendation letters from experts in the 
field. However, the memo and change to the AFM previously referred to specifically indicates that 
"claims that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive." In 
addition, the Petitioner does not provide an explanation of the reasons it considers reference letters to 
be comparable to membership in an association which requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. When discussing and summarizing the letters, and their value as comparable evidence, in 
its initial brief, the Petitioner states only that "One way to properly evaluate the contribution and 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submilled with Certa in Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator ·s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-/4 (December 22, 
2010). 
2 Id. The Policy Memo further provides that "[g]eneral assertions that any of the ten objective criteria described in 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply are not probative and should be discounted." 
3 
.
Matter of N-H-Inc . 
ability of an individual in the field is to examine the opinions of those at the top of the field." This 
statement presents no comparison of these letters to membership in an association, and its reference 
to "the contribution and ability of an individual in the field" suggests instead their consideration as 
evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As for the totality of the Beneficiary's work in his field, the Petitioner refers to a section of its initial 
brief which provides an overview .of the Beneficiary ' s career and refers to webpages and reference 
letters as supporting evidence. Again, the brief offers no comparison of this evidence to that which 
would be submitted in support of membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement 
of its members. Accordingly, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, 
through either direct or comparable evidence. 
Published material about the individual in pr<~fessional 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 <?f the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
As noted by the Director in his decision, the record includes several newspaper clippings about the 
Beneficiary and his work but these documents are not complete articles and do not identify the date, 
author or newspaper in which they were published. As such, these materials do not qualify under 
this criterion. Other evidence includes several articles, most from the website of Indo American 
News (IAN), that discuss performances by the Petitioner's dancers, mentioning the Beneficiary as 
the choreographer , or appearances by the Beneficiary to lead Bollywood-style dances. These articles 
focus primarily on the events at which these performances or appearances occurred, and not about 
the Beneficiary and his work. Articles that do not pertain to the Beneficiary do not meet this 
regulatory criterion . See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. 
Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). In 
addition, information submitted about IAN, published on its website, indicates that it is "the first and 
oldest South Asian publication in Texas" and that 7,000 copies are published every week. Absent 
comparative publication evidence, we cannot determine that IAN qualifies as other major media 
under this criterion . Further, an article reproduced on the website rediff.com, dated 2002 , 
is about the Beneficiary and his work as a choreographer , but the record does not include evidence to 
establish that rediff.com is a qualifying publication under this criterion . Upon review, we concur 
with the Director that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied.field of specialization for which 
class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary 
served on a judging panel at the in India. While two reference letters 
confirm that he acted as a choreographer and trainer at there is no indication that he 
participated as a judge, either on a panel or individually. Further, the Petitioner does not challenge 
4 
.
Matter of N-H-lnc. 
the Director's determination on appeal. Accordingly, we find that the Beneficiary does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, 
business-related contributions of major sign(ficance in the .field. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
athletic, or 
8 C.F.R. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a Petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. The Petitioner submitted several reference letters, and asserted in its response to the 
RFE that the Beneficiary "has created a plethora of original content in the field." While we agree 
that the evidence establishes the Beneficiary's creation of original artistic content in movies and 
dance productions, not every such creation qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the 
field. The Petitioner submitted copies of webpages from www.imdb.com which show that the 
Beneficiary served as one of several choreographers for the Bollywood films 3 and 
and also submitted a letter from of who confirms that he 
choreographed commercials for three brands. However, this evidence does not establish that the 
Beneficiary's work in these projects, or others, have made an impact in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted several reference letters from experts in the entertainment industry. 
Artistic Director of the m describes the 
Beneficiary's work choreographing several plays in collaboration with her, including a musical rock 
opera "mega production" called This work is verified by , Managing Trustee 
of the , who worked on with the Beneficiary and states that it 
"travelled nationwide to huge audiences with critical acclaim." While an unidentified newspaper 
clipping provides a partial review of the Beneficiary's role in this production, neither it nor other 
evidence in the record indicates that it influenced other choreographers or is considered to be of 
major significance. 
also describes the Beneficiary's work with , stating that he has worked 
with its dancers for 13 years, creating "special movement exercises" and conducting master classes 
in movement studies and choreography. This evidence indicates that he has made significant 
contribution to but does not establish that that impact extended to the greater field. 
Managing Director confirms that the Beneficiary has 
produced and choreographed nine performances at the public arena, and that these shows 
have been attended by thousands and "are some of the highest caliber we have on our program." 
While this evidence shows that the Beneficiary has enjoyed success in bringing dance performances 
3 Although other evidence in the record indicates he also served as a choreographer for the film 
imdb.com doesn't list him or anyone else as a choreographer for that film. 
5 
the evidence from 
.
Matter of N-H-Inc . 
to the 
choreography. 
area, it does not demonstrate that these shows have made an impact on the field of 
Upon review, we agree with the Director and find that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that "We submit that 
this criterion was promulgated primarily with academics, scholars and researchers in mind," and 
referred to the same evidence as described in the criterion relating to membership in associations 
requiring outstanding achievements as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). However, 
the assertion that a criterion does not apply to the Beneficiary's occupation is not sufficient to meet 
the requirement for submission of comparable evidence, and the Petitioner ' s assertion on appeal that 
those in his profession "do not write scholarly articles for professional or major trade publications " 
lacks evidentiary support. As previously explained, the comparable evidence regulation does not 
focus on a single criterion, but requires that the Petitioner explain why it has not submitted evidence 
that would satisfy at least three of the listed criteria. Again, the Petitioner has not provided such an 
explanation. 
Also, the Petitioner has not explained how reference letters and information from webpages about 
his roles in movies are comparable to evidence of the publication of scholarly articles. Therefore, 
we find that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Director found that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. Upon review of the entirety of the 
record, we agree that based upon the display of the Beneficiary's work in movies and dance 
productions performed at public venues, he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has per.formed 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 Beneficiary has submitted evidence that he is the Petitioner's founder and artistic director, and 
that due to his work in this role, the Petitioner has received competitive grants for several years from 
the city of to perform well-received public dance productions. As such, we agree that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
6 
.
Matter of N-H-Inc. 
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) 
The Petitioner previously claimed this criterion based upon the Beneficiary's work as an actor in the 
commercially successful film We initially note that this work does not appear to be in his 
claimed field of dance and choreography, as there is no indication that he performed in either 
capacity in this film. In addition, as noted by the Director, the evidence does not establish the 
significance of the Beneficiary's role in the film, such that its commercial success could be attributed 
to him. The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision on appeal, and we find that the 
record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualification under this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary received a major , internationally recognized 
award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Beneficiary has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-H-lnc. , ID# 1754023 (AAO Nov. 19, 2018)