dismissed EB-1A Case: Dancesport

identifvfng dab 6Cld 80 
prevent dearly unwamantd 
Wd-prlnq - 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Avc., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 069 50778 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 0 5 M05 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. @ 11 53(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. 
%Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EA'~ 03 069 50778 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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 1 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. 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. 
Prior to the director's discussion of the regulatory criterion, the director noted the petitioner's lack of a degree in 
dance. On appeal, counsel notes that degrees in one's field are not among the type of evidence suggested in the 
regulatory criteria. While we concur with counsel that whether the petitioner has a degree in dancesport is 
irrelevant to her eligibility, we uphold the director's determination that the petitioner does not meet at least three 
criteria for the reasons discussed below. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 ibrth 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 she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a dancesport dancer. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 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, international 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. In her 
EAC 03 069 50778 
Page 3 
decision, the director stated that "meeting three of the ten categories of evidence suggested by regulation does 
not automatically establish the [petitioner's] eligibility." 
While we may not agree with the exact working of the above statement, we do not read the director's 
decision as concluding that the petitioner was eligible under the regulations but that the petition was not 
approvable. A more rational interpretation of the director's decision is that the petitioner submitted 
documentation that related to or addressed three criteria, but that the evidence itself was not indicative of 
national or international acclaim. A petitioner cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria. In determining whether a petitioner meets a 
specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or uniquely 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt qf lesser nutionully or intrrnationali) recognized prizes or wards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted two lists of her competition results. These lists do not appear to be official 
confirmation of the results listed. The petitioner submitted evidence of the following results: 
1. First Place in Youth Latin at the United States Ballroom Championships in 1996, 
2. First Place in the Latin American program at the Russian Open Championships, Youth- 
97 in 1997, 
3. Ranked 17"' at the EDSF World Youth Latin competition in Slovenia in 1997, 
4. Ranked 14" at the lDSF International Open Latin in Miami in 1997, 
5. First Place in the Latin Program at the Russian Closed Dance Sport Championships, 
Yunost 98 in I998 (Organized by the Committee of Youth Involvement Physical 
Education and Sports), 
6. Finalist in the Latin Open Amateur program at the Manhattan Dancesport 
Championships in 1998, and 
7. Ranked 41h in the RI 2000 National Championship. 
The petitioner also received certificates of "outstanding results" and "professional show" from Russian youth or 
young adult sports committees. 
The director implied that the photocopied awards submitted were insufficient. Further, the director determined 
that the awards were not recent and concluded that they were issued to the petitioner and her partner and, thus, 
did not recognize the petitioner individually. The director also noted that while some of the materials indicate 
recognition of dancesport by the International Olympic Committee, the petitioner did not compete at that level. 
Finally, the director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the above awards constitute nationally 
or internationally recogl~ized awards. 
I 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision, 
EAC 03 069 50778 
Page 4 
On appeal, counsel asserts that photocopied evidence is acceptable, that the director misstated the period during 
which the petitioner won awards and that the U.S. Ballroom Dancing Association competitions are national. 
Counsel notes that ballroom dancing requires a partner and that dancesport is not yet an Olynlpic sport. 
While we accept the photocopied awards and published rankings submitted, we reiterate that the full list of the 
petitioner's competition results does not appear to be an official document and is not evidence of the petitioner's 
rankings at the undocumented events. 
We concur with counsel that the director's concern regarding the lack of individual recognition is misplaced. 
We do not discount nationally or internationally recognized team awards. 
While the director misstated the dates of the petitioner's awards, conchding that some were from the 1980's, the 
fact that the petitioner submitted no evidence of competition after 2000 is significant. We disagree with 
counsel's interpretation that "sustained" merely means over a period of time even if the acclaim is not recent. 
This office consistently holds that the word "sustained" relates to the time of filing. While the petitioner's lack 
of awards in the two years prior to filing the instant petition would not be problematic if other evidence relating 
to other criteria was more recent, that is not the case in this matter. 
Finally, while some of the petitioner's awards are national in scope, the only documented awards are from youth 
competitions. We do not consider 4Ih, 14'~ and 17"' rankings or finatist status to constitute awards or prizes. As 
the most accomplished and experienced dancers do not compete at youth events, these awards cannot serve to 
meet this criterion In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's nrernbershiy in crssociations in the jeld for which cla.vsi$ication is sought, 
which require ourstunding achievenzents oftheir members, as judged by rc)cognized nafionul or internationui 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's selection to represent her country at overseas competitions and the 
competitions themselves serve to meet this criterion. Focusing on the U.S. Amateur Ballroom Dancers 
Association (USABDA), the director concluded that the petitioner had not established membership in 
associations in her field or that the associations require outstanding achievements of their members. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that USBDA selected the petitioner for competitions and financed her participation. 
Counsel further asserts that the director failed to consider "the role that [the petitioner] played in Russian 
dancesport organizations." 
The petitioner's role for an association is not relevant to this criterion. Rather, the plain language of this 
criterion requires membership in an association. Selection for and admission to a competition is not a 
membership. Thus, we concur with the director's conclusion that the record lacks evidence of the petitioner's 
membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Published muteriuls about the alien in professional or major trade puhliculions or other mujor mediu, 
relating to the alien :s work in rhe field for which classiJficalion is sought. Such evidence sh~~ll incltrde the 
title, date, lrnd cruthor ofthe material, und any necessury translution. 
EAC 03 069 50778 
Page 5 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through her television appearances and by being 
'Yeatured or mentioned in various publications, many of which do not appear to have a national circulation. 
The director concluded that the published materials were not recent and did not appear to be major media. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the director ignored the evidence of the television coverage of the petitioner and her 
partner. Counsel further asserts that Dance Week, DunceBeal, a USABDA Press Release, and Amateur Duncers 
constitute major media. 
The print materials are not persuasive. The only publications that feature the petitioner in any meaningful way 
are not major media. The publications referenced by counsel on appeal did not publish articles primarily about 
the petitioner or the petitioner and her partner. Rather, the petitioner's name is included in rankings published in 
these magazines and she appears in photograph spreads of several dancers performing at various competitions. 
The petitioner did submit evidence that Russian television featured her and her partner in a documentary in 
1996. While this evidence is more persuasive, it is not indicative of sustained acclaim as of the date of filing in 
2003. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, eilher individually or on apunrl, as cr judge of the wmrk of others in the 
sume or an uilied.field of spec$cationfor which ciuss$cation is sought. 
The director concluded that no evidence was submitted relating to this criterion. On appeal, counsel notes that 
Olga Foraponova attested to the petitioner's work as a judge. Counsel further notes that the petitioner has 
worked as a dance teacher. 
Evaluating one's students is inherent to the occupation of teaching and coaching. We cannot conclude that 
every teacher, instructor or coach has national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner's work as a teacher 
is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
In her initial letter, ~sstates that the petitioner and her partner "were granted the right to judge 
regional competitions on level E, D and C in International Latin and Standard by the National Professional 
Dancesport Organization." ~s.oes not claim to be affiliated with the National Professional 
DanceSport Organization or otherw~se explain how she has first hand knowledge of this judgin responsibility. 
The record does not include programs identilying the petitioner as a judge and Ms-not identify 
specific competitions judged by the petitioner and the dates of those competitions. Without more specific 
information, we cannot conclude that the evidence relating to this criterion i; sufficiently indicative of national 
or international acclaim as of the date of filing. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence cflhe alien's original scientrfic, scholarly, artistic, athlefic, or business-related contributions of 
mujor signijicance in the field. 
Counsel did not initially claim that the petitioner meets this criterion. The director concluded that the record 
lacked evidence of the petitioner's influence on the field. The director also questioned the expertise of the 
petitioner's references. On appeal, counsel states: 
EAC 03 069 50778 
Page 6 
First, success at the highest levels of competition in both Russia and the United States does not 
support the conclusion that the [petitioner] lacks original contributions in her field. Ballroom 
dance competitions at this level are judged; judges rank competitors on the basis of skills, 
presentation and showmanship. Second, invitations such as performing a showcase at the 
Russian National Dancesport competition would normally indicate that the [petitioner] has 
influence[d] her field; likewise, being on Russian television suggest the same. Third, if the 
field is competitive ballroom dancing, then the success at the highest levels of competition by 
definition means national or international acclaim for her performances. Fourth, each of the 
dancesport experts who submitted letters summarized their accomplishments or included 
attachments and therefore documented their status as experts. 
This criterion requires more than mere success and participation in high-level competitions. The petitioner's 
awards have been considered above. In order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate an influence 
on the field recognized in the field as a contribution of major significance. 
The petitioner's references, many of whom have demonstrated expertise in the petitioner's field by serving as 
coaches and judges, affirm the petitioner's talent, but do not attest to an influence on that field. The record 
contains no evidence that the petitioner has set a record or similar standard to which other competitive dancers 
aspire. Nor does the record establish that the petitioner's style has proven influential. Even assuming the strict 
rules of competition do not allow for innovation, the inapplicability of a criterion does not require us to accept 
lesser evidence to meet it. Thus, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the displq of the alien's work in the field at crrtistic exhibitions or showcuscs. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her competitions and charity performances. The director concluded that 
the "quality and caliber of these venues is not documented in the record." 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
First, the nature of ballroom dance competition is that it involves dancing before an audience 
and judges. To do so at the highest national levels in both Russia and the United States is a 
display at an artistic showcase. Second, [the petitioner] ha been featured in special 
performances at these competitions, such as a special show at the Russian Dancesport 
Championships in 1998. 
We agree that dancing before judges and an audience is inherent to ballroom dancing. It is precisely because all 
competitive dancers perform for others that such performances cannot serve to meet this criterion. Specifically, 
they do not elevate the petitioner above others in her field. 
As is evident from the consideration of dancesport for Olympic competition, dancesport is better classified as 
athletics than an art. Thus, it is not even clear that this criterion applies to dance competitors, as a dance 
competition is not an artistic exhibition or showcase. 
EAC 03 069 50778 
Page 7 
Further. we acknowledge that the petitioner has competed at high-level competitions. We note, however, that 
the Supplementary information at 56 Fed. Reg. 60899 (November 29, 1991) states: 
The Service disagrees that all athletes performing at the major league level should 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. . . . A blanket rule for all major league 
athletes would contravene Congress' intent to reserve this category to "that small percentage of 
individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Thus, merely competing at the highest level is insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted a certificate recognizing the petitioner "for a professional show in Russian 
Dance Sport Championships." This certificate does not indicate that the petitioner was selected to showcase her 
dancing exclusive of the other competitors at that competition. 
Finally, volunteer performances at schools and charity events do not constitute the type of exclusive artistic 
exhibitions or showcases contemplated by this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leud~ng or critical role,for organizutions or estublishmenl.~ that 
hme a distinguished repzitation. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets her employment as a dance instructor 
with the Fred Astaire Dance Studio. According to the petitioner holds the title of Fred 
Astaire National Youth and Amateur International Latin Champions, a championship limited to the staff at the 
150 affiliated schools. The record doer not contain an award certificate confirming this recognition, but- 
~irector and Manager of the Fred Astaire affiliated school where the petitioner teaches, provider similar 
information. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner's competitive accomplishments constitute a critical role 
for the school that trained her. 
Referencing his discussion for the published materials and judging criteria, the director concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that she meets this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director ignored 
the evidence submitted. 
We find that this criterion is a distinct criterion and we are not persuaded that the petitioner's failure to meet the 
published materials and judging criteria impact this criterion. Thus, more discussion is warranted than provided 
by the director. 
According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the relevant factors for this 
criterion are the nature of the role the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that hired her. 
We do not contest the distinguished reputation of the Fred Astaire schools. The role of dance instructor, 
however, is not an intrinsically leading or critical role for the studios beyond the obvious fact that a studio must 
employ dance instructors. The fact that as a dance instructor, the petitioner has successfully competed against 
other instructors, does not change the nature of the role she was hired to fill. 
EAC 03 069 50778 
Page 8 
Finally, while we do not contest the distinguished reputation of the petitioner's school, we do not find that 
competing successfully upon graduation constitutes a leading or critical role for one's former school. 
Cotnpurative evidence y ursuanr to 8 C. F. R. ,f 20 4. S(h) (4) 
Throughout the proceedings, counsel has asserted that the stature of the petitioner's coaches serves to meet this 
criterion. The director did not consider this assertion. 
Counsel acknowledges that comparable evidence is appropriate "if the listed standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation." Yet counsel does not explain why the regulatory criteria, most of which counsel 
asserts the petitioner meets, are not readily applicable to the petitioner's field. Moreover, counsel does not 
identify the criterion to which the stature of the petitioner's coaches is comparable. While we do not contest 
that the top coaches in a sport will typically limit themselves to the most promising individuals, we will not infer 
the petitioner's acclaim from those with whom she is affiliated. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a dancer to 
such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within 
the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a 
dancer. but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in 
her field. 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.