dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U S. C~t~zenship and Immigration Serv~ces 
Office ofAdmrn~stratrve Appeals MS 2090 
Washmgton, DC 20529-2090 
D 
,,.A 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COP 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 1-290B, 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
w John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts and athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 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). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on May 3, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a professional dancer. 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. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this regulatory criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner initially submitted competition results and photographs of awards. The Service 
advised the petitioner that while meritorious, it has not been established that these constitute 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. The Service requested that for any award the petitioner wished to claim in support 
of the criterion, he must provide a copylphotograph of the award that clearly identifies the 
name of the award and the recipient. The Service also requested evidence that establishes the 
nature and purpose of the award, the significance of the award, its scope, the requirements 
necessary to compete for the award, and the criteria utilized to select the recipient. In 
response, the petitioner provided copies of additional award certificates as well as copies of 
previously submitted awards. 
The evidence of record indicates the petitioner has participated in numerous dance 
competitions. For example, the petitioner placed first in the 1997 Queen Elizabeth 2 Silver 
Jubilee Commemorative Championship. Further, the petitioner received first place in 
Amateur Latin at the 2001 Crown International Championships. The record also indicates 
the petitioner either won awards or was recognized as a finalist at the Essex Latin Amateur 
Open in 2000 and 2001; the 1994 Thailand International Ballroom Dancing Championships; 
South Pacific Dancesport Championships in 1998; the Dancesport Ballroom Championships 
in 1996; among others. However, upon review, the evidence submitted fails to establish that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. First, while the petitioner has provided information 
regarding the Queen Elizabeth 2 Silver Jubilee Commemorative Championships, this 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
evidence does not establish the stature and prestige of the relating awards. It is also noted 
that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that establishes the stature and prestige of his 
other awards. In the absence of additional evidence, the record fails to establish that the 
petitioner's awards are indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Second, it appears that many of the petitioner's awards were won in amateur competitions. 
This does not support a finding that the petitioner has won awards at the highest level in the 
field. Third, it must be noted that many of the petitioner's awards were received in the mid 
1990's and early 2000's. The record does not establish that the petitioner has recently 
received additional awards. Therefore, even if the petitioner's previous awards could be 
considered evidence of acclaim, the petitioner has failed to sustain such acclaim through the 
receipt of additional awards at high-level competitions. 
With regard to the 1997 Queen Elizabeth 2 Silver Jubilee Commemorative Championship, the 
petitioner submitted a March 26, 2008 letter from ~dministrative Director for 
Victoria and South East Asia, Federal Association of Teachers of Dancing (FATD), Ltd., Australia, 
stating: 
This letter is written to certify that [the petitioner] . . . placed first in this Country's most 
prestigious 10 dance [modern and Latin] Championship the Queen Elizabeth 2 Silver Jubilee 
Commemorative Championship conducted at this organization's South Pacific Ballroom 
Dance Championship in Sydney Australia September 1997. 
On other occasions at this event in various years they received places in the top 3 of modern 
ballroom and Latin events - Level 5. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 25, 2008 letter from stating "This letter 
certifies that [the petitioner and his partner] were through their dancing career over many years in 
Australia registered as amateur competitors with the ~ustralian ~anci& Board the only regulating 
body of amateur dancin com etition in this Country." [Emphasis added.] According to the 
preceding letters from Level 5 is an amateur-level designation rather than a 
professional dancing designation. We cannot conclude that registration as an amateur competitor in 
a field that includes professionals is an indication that the petitioner "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 
seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their 
respective fields, rather than for amateurs who aspire to become professionals at some unspecified 
future time. 
The petitioner's evidence included a list entitled "Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee Commemorative 
Trophies Previous Winners." The winners list has two sections: Amateur and Professional. The 
petitioner and his partner's name appear in "Amateur" winners section (1997). The record also 
includes material from the FATD entitled "The Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee Commemorative 
Trophies" stating: 
Page 5 
To mark the celebration of the Federal's Diamond Jubilee in 1991 the Directors of the 
Association resolved to replace the former South Pacific Amateur State Representative 
Championships with the inauguration of State Representative Teams Match so that as from 
1991 this very special Commemorative Amateur Trophy will continue to be awarded 
annually . . . to the overall winners of the South Pacific Adult (A) Grade Standard and Latin 
American Championships. 
[Emphasis added.] 
The petitioner submitted two Certificates of Honor from the FATD South Pacific Dancesport 
Championships (1998) reflecting that he qualified among the "Finalists" in the "Adult Open Latin 
American" and "Adult Open Standard categories. The petitioner also submitted three Certificates 
of Honor from the FATD Dancesport Ballroom Championships (1996) reflecting that he was a 
"Grand Finalist" in the "Interdominion Adult Open New Vogue," "Interdominion Ten Dance," and 
"Interdominion Adult Open Standard" categories. While it is certainly an honor to be selected as a 
finalist, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's receipt of 
"nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." In this instance, there is no evidence 
from the FATD showing that the petitioner received a prize or an award at the FATD South Pacific 
Dancesport Championships (1998) or the FATD Dancesport Ballroom Championships (1996). In 
addition, the events in which the petitioner competed were for amateurs. 
The petitioner submitted a March 26, 2008 letter from 
 Co-organizer, FATD, 
stating that he and his partner won the FATD's "Crown" International Dancesport Championship "in 
the amateur Latin Section . . . on April 1, 2001." In support of this statement, the petitioner 
submitted a results list for the "2001 Crown International Championships" reflecting that he and his 
partner placed first in the "Amateur Latin" category. Accordin to the results list, the competition 
included a more exclusive "Professional Latinx category won by k and - 
The petitioner submitted two certificates from the British Dance Council reflecting that he won the 
"Essex Latin Amateur Open" in 2000 and 2001. 
The petitioner submitted another letter from 
 stating that he "was in Taipei and 
Bangkok when [the petitioner and his partner] won the amateur ballroom and Latin International 
events in those cities in the late 1990's." [Emphasis added.] In support of this statement, the 
petitioner submitted a certificate from the 1994 Thailand International Ballroom Dancing 
Championship stating that he and his partner "placed lSt in the Amateur Modern" category. The 
petitioner also submitted photographs of his lSt place amateur trophies from the Thailand 
International Ballroom Dancing Championship (1994) and the Taipei International Championships 
(1995). 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the 1994 lSt Penang International Ballroom Dance Sport 
Championship stating that he and his partner were the "1" Runner-up" in the "Amateur Latin" event. 
While it is certainly an honor to be selected as lSt Runner-up, the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards." In this instance, there is no evidence from the competition's organizers showing 
that the petitioner received a prize or an award at this event. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
 Secretary, Dance Masters of Australia, stating 
that he and his partner were "winners of the Junior New Vogue, Modern & Latin section at the 1992 
Dance Masters of Australia Championships" [emphasis added] and that they "earned the right to 
represent Victoria at the Australasian Championships in Adelaide." In support of this statement, the 
petitioner submitted a plaque stating: "Victorian Representative 1992 Australasia Championships 
Junior Modem. Latin American. New Vogue. [The petitioner] ." [Emphasis added.] 
The petitioner submitted a results listing for the "Dance and Listen Awards England" (2002) 
reflecting that he and his partner placed in the top 12 and reached the semifinals in the "Amateur 
Latin" category. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's 
receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." In this instance, there is no 
evidence from the competition's organizers showing that the petitioner received a prize or an award 
at this event. 
The petitioner submitted a results list for the "Blackpool Dance Festival" (2001) reflecting that he 
and his partner placed 64th among 309 couples in the "Amateur Latin" category. There is no 
evidence from the competition's organizers showing that the petitioner received a prize or an award 
at this festival. The petitioner also submitted information obtained from Wikipedia regarding the 
significance of the Blackpool Dance ~estival.' Regarding information from Wikipedia, there are no 
assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.l See Lamilern 
Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (gth Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight 
to information for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner indicates that all of the awards submitted for this 
regulatory criterion were won in "junior" or "amateur" level dancing competitions. We cannot 
conclude that such awards demonstrate that the petitioner "is one of that small percentage who have 
This information indicates that the Blackpool Dance Festival includes "professional couples" competitive categories. 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of 
the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on July 10, 2009, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter ofprice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ 
Likewise, it does not follow that a dancer who has had success in national or international competition 
at the junior or amateur level should necessarily qualifj for an extraordinary ability employment-based 
immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor." Further, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In 
this case, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's awards had significant recognition 
beyond the context of the dance competitions where they were presented. Finally, there is no 
evidence showing the petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in 
dance competition during the five years preceding the petition's filing date. On appeal, counsel 
acknowledges that the petitioner "retired from competitive dancing in 2003." Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or international acclaim as a competitive dancer has 
been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). The preceding evidence is not consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim as of the date of filing of this petition and, thus, is insufficient to meet this criterion without 
additional evidence under this criterion or other criteria documenting the petitioner's more recent 
acclaim as a dancer. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classlJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner initially claimed membership in the FATD, the Association of Teachers of Dance 
(ATD), and the English Amateur Dance Association (EADA). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information about the 
FATD from its internet site stating: 
To this day full membership of the Federal Association is available by examination only, to 
persons over the age of 18 years, in any one of seven dance disciplines covered by the 
Ballroom Faculty and the Theatre Dance Faculty. 
Membership of the Association is available by examination only and may be attained in 
either Tap or Modern taking the examinations is strict rotation --- Elementary - Associate 
Degree : Intermediate - Licentiate Degree : Advanced - Advanced Member Degree. 
We cannot conclude that passing an examination in a particular dance discipline is tantamount to 
outstanding achievements. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not submitted his membership credential 
for the FATD identifying him as a member of the Association. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
While the petitioner may have competed at events organized by the FATD,~ there is no evidence 
(such as examination results or an identification card) of his membership in the Association. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted a March 25, 2008 from of Dancesport 
Victoria stating: "This letter certifies that [the petitioner and his partner] were through their dancing 
career over many years in Australia registered as amateur competitors with the Australian Dancing 
Board the only regulating body of amateur dancing competition in this Country." With regard to the 
petitioner's registration as an amateur competitor with the Australian Dancing Board (now 
Dancesport Victoria), the petitioner has not established that his registration equates to holding 
membership in an association. Further, there is no evidence (such as bylaws or official admission 
On appeal, counsel identifies the March 25, 2008 from of Dancesport Victoria (Exhibit 0, item 4) as 
"F.A.T.D. 1 Dance Sport Victoria Member Letter." This letter states only that the petitioner and his partner were 
"registered as amateur competitors with the Australian Dancing Board (now Dancesport Victoria). It does not state that 
the petitioner was a member of the FATD as asserted by counsel. 
standards) showing that the Australian Dancing Board required outstanding achievements of its 
registrants, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an 
allied one. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a letter from 
Ch ief Executive Officer, ATD, stating: 
[The petitioner and his partner] have been members of the ATD for the past 15 years. During 
that time they completed all levels of medal tests in Jazz Dance: Tap Dancing: FunklHip Hop 
and Show Dance which let to the completion of degrees to Licentiate Level the second 
highest in the above styles. 
[Emphasis added.] 
On appeal, the preceding letter from 
 was accompanied by an ATD "Examination 
Report Form" for the petitioner dated May 7, 1992. This form reflects that the petitioner received a 
paising grade of 99%; but lists his "~rade" as "Elementary." The preceding information does not 
establish that attaining the Licentiate Level in the ATD requires outstanding achievements. Further, 
the petitioner has not established that attaining "the second highest" Licentiate Level is an indication 
that he "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's response to the director's request for evidence included a copy of his "Adult 
Membership1 Registration Card" for the EADA. The petitioner also submitted a Certificate of 
Appreciation from Vicdance, Inc. recognizing his "contribution to the growth of Vicdance, Inc.," but 
the certificate does not state that the petitioner held membership in that organization. The 
petitioner's response also included a July 29, 2004 advisory opinion letter from the American Guild 
of Musical Artists (AGMA), but the letter does not state that the petitioner was a member. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the EADA, Vicdance Inc., and the AGMA require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 21, 2007 letter from 
 Co-Director of Dance 
Department, McDonald Selznick Associates, Inc. (MSA) stating that her agency represents him. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted his November 6, 2004 
"Talent Agency Agreement" with MSA and information about the company from its internet site. 
The petitioner has not established that his contractual arrangement for MSA to represent him in 
equates to membership in an association. Further, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's ability to 
secure employment representation from a talent agency is tantamount to outstanding achievements. 
6 
 The petitioner, born on March 3, 1977, was age 15 at that time. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that the preceding organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in his field 
or an allied one. Accordingly, 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 the jield 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. 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.7 
The petitioner submitted a 1999 article in Australian Gazette entitled "Dancing siblings to seek fame 
in London." The author of this article was not identified as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a "comment" about him and his partner in the March 29, 2001 issue of 
Dance News entitled "Open Essex Amateur Latin Championship." The comment consists of a three- 
sentence analysis of their dance performance at the amateur competition. 
The petitioner submitted a six-sentence article entitled "The right step." The name of the publication 
and the date and the author of the article were not identified as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a captioned photograph of him and his partner dancing on page 107 of the 
December 6, 1992 issue of the Herald-Sun. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
"published material about the alien" including "the title, date and author of the material." A 
captioned photograph does not meet these requirements. 
The petitioner submitted another captioned photograph of him and his partner dancing on page 13 of 
- - 
the February 5, 1992 issue of the Waver1 Leader. This photograph inthe Waverly Leader appeared 
with a "Business Profile" of Wendon Dance Academy in the "Leader Advertising 
Feature." The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be 
"about the alien." The preceding advertisement was not about the petitioner and does not meet the 
elements of this criterion. 
7 
 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. 
The petitioner submitted a nine-sentence article entitled "Young dancers do well" from page 27 of 
the September 6, 1989 issue of the Waverly Gazette. This article discusses the petitioner's 
competition "in the under- 13 age group." The author of this article was not identified as required by 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a seven-sentence article entitled "The right step" in the "Community Sport" 
section of an unidentified newspaper. The name of the publication and the date and the author of the 
article were not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an incomplete copy of an 
August 1989 article in The Australian. This article, entitled "Dancesport foxtrots to Olympic stage," 
was accompanied by a captioned photograph identifying the petitioner and his dance partner. While 
the visible portion of the article mentions the petitioner's dance partner, there is no discussion in the 
article about the petitioner. Accordingly, this material does not meet the elements of this regulatory 
criterion. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included an article about singer 
Vonzell Solomon in the April 2, 2008 issue of USA Today, but the petitioner's name is not 
specifically mentioned. Aside from this article not being about the petitioner, it was published 
subsequent to May 3, 2007, the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this article in this 
proceeding. 
On page 7 of her letter responding to the director's request for evidence, counsel provides circulation 
information for The Australian, Herald-Sun, Waverly Leader, and USA Today. Counsel does not 
identify or provide the source of her circulation information. Without evidence in the record to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 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). There is no objective evidence showing that the 
preceding publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or some other form of major 
media. Even if the petitioner were to submit objective evidence demonstrating that each of the 
preceding newspapers qualify as major publications, as discussed, the material in those newspapers 
does not meet the remaining elements of this regulatory criterion. 
Aside from the preceding deficiencies, we cannot ignore the lack of evidence for this regulatory 
criterion from 2001 to the petition's filing date. As previously noted, the statute and regulations require 
the petitioner to demonstrate that hs national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). 
The director's decision discussed the deficiencies in the petitioner's evidence for this criterion and 
concluded that "the record fails to establish that the petitioner has published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media." We concur with the director's 
findings. On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's observations. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
Executive Vice Chairman, Wayne Foster Entertainment, states: 
[The petitioner] has been in our employ since January of 2005 as one of our Specialty Talent 
Performers, more specifically as a Ballroom Dancer. He and his sister . . . have consistently 
performed for Wayne Foster Entertainment at numerous Benefits, Galas, Corporate 
Celebrations, Weddings and other social events that we provide the entertainment for. 
His position here at Wayne Foster Entertainment requires a high level of commitment, a 
cooperative attitude and excellent work ethics. He possesses all of these traits and we 
consider him to be an outstanding performer and highly respected employee. 
He is extremely talented and professional and we consider him to be an indispensable asset to 
our performances. We plan to continue utilizing [the petitioner's] talent to its fullest capacity 
for our upcoming calendar of events. 
Entertainment Manager, Golden Nugget Hotel, Las Vegas, states: 
[The petitioner] was employed as a dancer in the cast of Simply Ballroom in December 2006. 
Simply Ballroom is a Ballroom dance show that after great success in the United Kingdom 
and London's West end now has a show that resides in the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino in 
Las Vegas. 
After an intensive audition process [the petitioner] and his dance partner . . . were selected as 
one of two couples here in the United States to join the other three couples in the cast brought 
to Vegas from London. All of the couples in the show including [the petitioner and his 
partner] are of very high standard and excel in the field of Ballroom Dancing. 
[The petitioner] is proving to be of great value to an already high level production. His years 
of Ballroom dancing experience are essential for the role that he has been given within the 
company. 
QDOS Productions is extremely impressed by [the petitioner's] talent and input in the show 
and he has become an essential part of its success. 
, President, Scott Stander and Associates, Inc. states: 
I am writing this letter to inform you that as a licensed talent agency, we have booked m~ 
-for employment in their professional field of dance on several occasions. 
Currently, they are performing in the national tour of Simply Ballroom, starring= 
. In addition to this, we have booked them on cruise ships as both performers and 
choreographers of nightly dance shows consisting of different 25 minute sets. 
We are pleased to represent the [the petitioner and his partner], as they are in demand as 
highly regarded performers and choreographers. 
, an entertainer, states: "I have been touring with [the petitioner and his partner] in 
a production show called 'Simply Ballroom.' They are very talented dancers. I feel [the petitioner 
and his partner] have great potential to perform here in the United States." 
a singer and a member of Strategic Artist Management, states: "I had the pleasure of 
hiring [the petitioner and his partnerl, as dancers for my Christmas tour in 2005. [The petitioner] is 
not oily anextremely talented and skilled dancer but he is hardworking, dedicated kd dependable; I 
would not hesitate to hire him again in the future." 
While choreographing the movie RENT, I had the pleasure of hiring [the petitioner]. 
After a long audition process I selected [the petitioner] to be one of the dancers for the film. 
[The petitioner] is a strong dancer with an impressive dance background. As an expert in the 
Tango field [the petitioner] was an asset to have in the show and excelled in the "Tango 
Maureen" which was a major dance scene within the film. 
I have worked with [the petitioner] since RENT and he showed the same professionalism and 
exceptional talent as he did during RENT. 
[The petitioner] is a pleasure to work with and has extraordinary talent and ability and is an 
asset to any show. 
Co-Director of the Dance Department at McDonald Selznick Associates Inc., states: 
We are very interested in continuing to work with [the petitioner] and feel he has an 
extraordinary ability that the choreographers we represent and throughout the industry would 
be interested in continuing to work with him and help him pursue future endeavors. He has 
already participated in Clay Aiken's holiday tour 2005 and was a featured dancer in the 
feature film Rent choreographed by one of our clients Keith Young. His professionalism and 
etiquette is only matched by the top professionals in the industry and is what Casting 
Page 14 
Directors and Producers love. I am confident given the opportunity he could have a long and 
successful career . . . . 
I have worked with [the petitioner] a number of times and find him to be an extremely gifted 
and talented performer of truly extraordinary ability. After experiencing [the petitioner] 
while in rehearsal and performance or filming, I was overwhelmed by his abilities. It is rare 
to find such a performer who has the endurance and strength of an athlete as well as the 
technique and passion of an accomplished dancer. Mix those attributes with an amazing 
vocabulary in Ballroom and Latin Dance styles and you get a talent that rises above the rest! 
He further cemented my professional opinion of him when I had another chance to 
choreograph [the petitioner] and his partner on a music video for a Top 40 band, Jack's 
Mannequin ("Dark Blue" is the title of the video). 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of reference letters from various individuals praising 
his talents and discussing his employment as a dancer. The petitioner also submitted evidence 
documenting his dance performances for productions such as Simply Ballroom, the movie Rent, and 
Clay Aiken's Joyful Noise musical tour. Talent and the ability to secure employment in one's field, 
however, are not necessarily indicative of original artistic contributions of major significance. On 
page 4 of her letter responding to the director's request for evidence, counsel mentions the 
petitioner's receipt of awards, but this evidence has already been addressed under the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. In 
this case, the record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original artistic 
contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
The petitioner submitted digital video disc (DVD) recordings of his past performances. While these 
DVDs may show the petitioner performing original dance choreographed by him, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that this work equates to original contributions of major significance in his 
field. 
With regard to the petitioner's dancing achievements, the reference letters do not specify exactly 
what his original contributions in dancing have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any 
such contributions were of major significance in his field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. While the petitioner may have performed admirably in various productions, the 
documentation submitted by him does not establish that he has made original artistic contributions of 
major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on other dancers nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field 
has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's professional 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of a dancer or a choreographer who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner initially submitted documentation of hs competitive awards and amateur dance results as 
evidence for this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's participation in amateur dance competitions 
has previously been addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i). Virtually 
every competitive dancer "displays" his or her work in the sense of competing in front of an 
audience. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he performed onboard various cruise 
ships. The petitioner has not established the distinguished nature of these cruise liner venues. The 
record also includes evidence documenting the petitioner's dance performances for productions such 
as Simply Ballroom, the movie Rent, and Clay Aiken's Joyful Noise musical tour. Evidence 
submitted by the petitioner, however, casts some doubt on the significance of the latter production. 
Specifically, a captioned photograph appearing in the December 23, 2005 issue of Raleigh, North 
Carolina's News & Observer states: 
Raleigh native and 'American Idol' runner-up Clay Aiken - in town for his Joyful Noise Tour 
2005 - performs 'Sleigh Ride' in form of 9,000 fans Thursday evening at the RBC Center. 
Much to the audience's amusement, [the petitioner] included talent from Raleigh Little Theatre 
in his holiday act. The show's sentimental nature didn't wow everyone, but as one fan put it, 
the cheese factor was 'good cheesy.' 
The nature of the review in the News & Observer suggests that the performance was not particularly 
significant. Further, the petitioner has not established that Clay Aiken's Joyful Noise musical tour was 
a showcase or an exhibition devoted primarily to hs dancing rather than the music of pop singer Clay 
Aiken. With regard to the petitioner's performance in the "Tango Maureen" scene in the movie Rent 
and performance as part of the Simply Ballroom ensemble at the Golden Nugget, the evidence of 
record does not establish that the petitioner's participation in these productions was consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. We cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's ability to secure employment as a dancer equates to having his work shown at exclusive 
artistic showcases or exhibitions. 
Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it is intended for visual 
artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for performing artists such as the petitioner. In the 
performing arts, it is inherent to the occupation of a dancer to perform on stage. National or 
international acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of appearing on stage, but rather by 
attracting a substantial national or international audience. For this reason, the regulations establish 
separate criteria, especially for those whose work is in the performing arts. The petitioner's stage 
performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(x) and will be further addressed there. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner references various performances such as Simply Ballroom, Rent, Clay Aiken's 
Joyful Noise Tour, etc. as evidence in support of this criterion. While the performances 
demonstrate that the petitioner has been active in the field, it does not support a finding that 
he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. The fact remains that the 
petitioner is a dancer; it is inherent to his field to perform before an audience. The instant 
criterion is not met simply by demonstrating that the petitioner has performed in the field. In 
fact, it has not been established that the petitioner was the featured dancer or that his 
performance was so extraordinary that it places him at the pinnacle of the field. Further, 
while some of the venues/productions may be well known and have some level of prestige, 
not every performance can be considered an exhibition or showcase such that it is indicative 
or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
We concur with director's findings. On appeal counsel argues that the petitioner's contract with the 
Golden Nugget, recommendation letter from and photographs of the petitioner performing 
in Simply Ballroom demonstrate that the show is "internationally acclaimed" and that the petitioner and 
his partner are the "leading couple in the show." The record does not support counsel's conclusions. 
For example, the "Cast & Crew Contacts" card for Simply Ballroom submitted by the petitioner lists 
eighteen dancers and there is no evidence distinguishing the petitioner's role from that of the other 
performers. Further, there no evidence showing that the petitioner's name received top billing in the 
show or that his performance contract singled him out from the other Simply Ballroom performers by 
awarding him higher compensation. Nor is there evidence showing that the production has a 
distinguished national reputation (such as critical acclaim in major publications as opposed to local 
promotional media directed to Las Vegas visitors). Finally, we note that the documentation pertaining 
to the petitioner's dance contract and his role for the Simply Ballroom production are far more relevant 
to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (ix) and will be further addressed there. 
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. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
As evidence in support of this criterion, the petitioner also references the numerous 
productions in which he has been involved including Grease, The Wizard of Oz Rent the 
Movie, Simply Ballroom, Clay Aiken's Joyful Noise Tour, . . . etc. The petitioner's 
involvement in these productions serves as a testament of his talents and abilities as a dancer. 
It is reasonable to conclude that the petitioner has successfully performed his duties in these 
productions, which would be expected of any similarly employed individual in the field. 
However, upon request, the petitioner has not illustrated his position and contributions in 
relation to all other dancers, performers, production/technical staff, and key employees in the 
overall production. The record does not otherwise establish that the petitioner's 
performances and contributions were so extraordinary that he has been responsible for the 
success and standing of any identifiable organization/establishment to a degree consistent 
with the meaning of leading or critical. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role Grease, Wizard of 
Oz, and Oklahoma. According to the petitioner's resume, he performed in the Wendon Dance 
Academy's productions of Grease, Wizard ofOz, Oklahoma, and Aladdin. Aside from the self-serving 
claims in the petitioner's resume, there is no documentation showing that these productions had 
distinguished reputations or evidence from the Wendon Dance Academy confirming that his role was 
leading or critical. 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 158, 
165. 
Counsel further argues that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for Clay Aiken's Joyful 
Noise musical tour, the movie Rent, and Simply Ballroom. The petitioner submitted reference letters, 
event programs, promotional material such as brochures, photographs, payments to him, and 
performance contracts reflecting his participation in the preceding productions. While the record 
includes self-serving promotional material for the productions, the record does not include objective 
evidence of their distinguished reputations. Further, the petitioner's evidence does not establish that 
his role for the productions was leading or critical. With regard to the petitioner's role for Clay Aiken's 
Joyful Noise musical tour, the evidence submitted fails to specify how his role differentiated him from 
the other dance performers, let alone Clay Aiken and the members of his band. We cannot ignore 
that the primary focus of the Joyful Noise tour was Clay Aiken's music rather than background dance 
performances. In regard to the movie Rent, while the petitioner may have appeared in one dance 
scene and provided guidance to other dancers in that scene, the evidence fails to demonstrate how 
his role distinguished him from the dancers who appeared in multiple scenes, let alone from more 
significant roles such as the main actors, choreographer, and director. Regarding the petitioner's role 
in Simply Ballroom, nothing in the record distinguishes the petitioner's role from that of the several 
others dancers in the cast (such as Crystal Main, "Dance Captain"). For example, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's name frequently received top billing in the show or that its popularity 
increased when he was known to be performing. Accordingly, the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of the preceding 
productions to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted copies of his performance contracts and payments he received. In finding that 
the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
First, it must be noted that although the petitioner initially claimed this criterion, no evidence 
of his remuneration was found amongst the documentation. The Service requested 
documentary evidence of the petitioner's remuneration such as a W-2 wage statement or tax 
return. The Service also requested evidence that establishes his remuneration is significantly 
high in relation to others in the field. In response, the petitioner provided copies of various 
invoices and contracts. 
Upon review, the evidence of record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Most notably, the petitioner provided no documentary evidence of his yearly remuneration. 
Second, while the petitioner references information from the Department of Labor regarding 
the hourly wage of musicians, no such evidence was found amongst the documents. Further, 
it is unclear how wages of musicians relates to his occupation as a dancer. In essence, the 
petitioner has not provided sufficient documentary evidence which demonstrates that his 
salary is significantly high in relation to other similarly employed individuals in the field. 
We concur with the director that average hourly pay for musicians is not an appropriate basis for 
comparison with the petitioner's occupation. On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the 
director's observations. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence showing that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in 
relation to other professional dancers. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence of his dance performances for various productions. For 
example, the petitioner submitted event programs, contracts, reference letters, photographs, and digital 
video discs relating to his performances. This regulatory criterion calls for commercial successes in the 
form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting evidence of the petitioner's participation in various 
productions cannot meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. The record does not include 
evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner achieved commercial 
successes in the performing arts in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. For example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
performances consistently drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in 
greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature the petitioner. Nor is there 
evidence showing that the success of the productions in which the petitioner participated was 
primarily attributable to his dance performances. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner claims that he has achieved commercial success in the field based on his 
performances in various productions including Rent the Movie, Clay Aiken's Joyful Noise 
Tour, Grease, Wizard of Oz, . . . etc. However, the petitioner has provided no documentary 
evidence which demonstrates how the success of any of these productions can be attributed 
to him. Simply participating in a successful production is not sufficient in itself to meet this 
criterion. 
We concur with the director's findings. On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's 
observations. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Documentation in the record indicates that the alien was the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition. Although the words "extraordinary ability" are used in the Act for 
classification of artists under both the nonirnmigrant 0-1 and the first preference employrnent-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 "[elxtraordinary 
ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standard 
than that required for the immigrant classification, which defines 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. tj 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. tj 214.2(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant classification requires actual receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.F.R. tj 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 his eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability. Further, we do not find that an approval of a nonimmigrant visa mandates 
the approval of a similar immigrant visa. Each case must be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on 
the evidence of record. 
It must be noted that many 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. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonirnmigrant 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. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding 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. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. 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, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), ajf'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.