dismissed EB-1A Case: Folk Dance

#den- data q 
prevent dear' ww- 
hl'ash Of W~S@ D- 
mc copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 
 EAC 04 070 5 1 124 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: (UR 0 1 2m 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
pbert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 070 51 124 
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. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts as a Romanian folk dance performer and instructor. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter and additional evidence of his accomplishments, which 
occurred after the petition was filed on January 13,2004 and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103,2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Comm. 1971). The petitioner's claims made on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the 
appeal will be dismissed for the following reasons. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability7' 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. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
EAC 04 070 51124 
Page 3 
We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims in the following discussion of the regulatory 
criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria not discussed 
below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In his letter submitted with his Form 1-140, the petitioner states that he was a member of an internationally 
acclaimed Romanian folk dance group, Datina, which participated in several contests and festivals. The 
petitioner submitted a copy of a diiloma certifying ~atina's attendance at a cultural event in Hjerrring, Denmark 
in 1996, but the record does not indicate that the group, or the petitioner himself, won any nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award at this event. The petitioner also submitted a diploma presented to him 
by the County Council of Botosani on December 14, 2003 in recognition of his activities as a folk dancer with 
ompany of Botosani County Center for Cultural Support and Preservation." The record contains 
the significance of this certificate or documentation that the diploma reflects the 
- 
petitioner's national acclaim as a folk dancer, rather than his regional recognition in Botosani. The petitioner 
submitted no other evidence of folk dancing prizes or awards won by Datina or himself individually. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In his letter submitted with his Form 1-140, the petitioner states that in 2000 he became a full member of the 
Romanian Christian Society, Dorul, due to his contribution to the preservation of Romanian culture and folklore 
in the Romanian-American community of New York. Mr President of Dorul, confirms that the 
petitioner has actively contributed to Dorul, an organization he describes as working to preserve Romanian 
kthnic culture and heritage in the United States by organizing cultural activities for the Romanian community in 
New York. Mr. confirms that the petitioner made valuable contributions to Doru17s 100" anniversary 
celebration in New York. Yet Mr.wdoes not confirm the petitioner's membership in Dorul. The petitioner 
submitted no primary evidence of his Dorul membership and no documentation that outstanding achievements, 
as judged by national or international experts, are prerequisite to Dorul membership. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classifcation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted copies of several editions of 
 a review of Romanian spirituality and 
culture published by the Romanian Institute of Orthodox Theology and Spirituality in New York, which include 
photographs of the petitioner and his students at various perf&mances. one- edition briefly mentions the 
petitioner's direction of the Romanian youth folk dancing group, 
u 
The record contains no evidence 
that Gracious Light is a professional, major trade publication or a om o major media, publication in which 
could reflect national or international acclaim.  he petitioner also submitted a-pamphlet from what appears to 
be a Romanian cultural festival. This pamphlet is printed in a foreign language and was not submitted with a 
EAC 04 070 5 1124 
Page 4 
certified English translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is 
not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits translations of two articles about him and his work published in Romanian 
newspapers in March and April 2004 and a videotape of some of his performances from December 2004 to 
January 2005 broadcast on Romanian Voice Television. We cannot consider this evidence because it arose after 
the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted President of Romanian Voice 
International Enterprises, esident of R.V.M. Incorporated and the 
Transylvania Restaurant in 
Television Station in New York; Father 
 of the Romanian Institute of 
Society; 
of the Dorul 
resident 
individuals as his friends. 
While recommendation letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, 
they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate 
that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom 
he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition cany less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters 
as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
The letters praise the petitioner's skills and accomplishments as a Romanian folk dancer and instructor and 
attest to his contributions to preserving the Romanian cultural heritage in the United States. Yet the letters do 
not identify any original contributions of major significance that the petitioner has made to his field. Moreover, 
the letters indicate that the petitioner's field is limited to Romanian folk dance and instruction and that his 
reputation and accomplishments in the United States do not extend beyond the Romanian-American community 
on the East Coast. The submitted documentation of the petitioner's work in the United States further shows that 
the petitioner's achievements have only been recognized within the Romanian-American community, 
predominately in the New York region. While they may be meaningful and valuable, contributions recognized 
only by a regional ethnic minority population in the United States do not demonstrate the requisite national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner submitted no evidence, for example, that his work has been critically 
acclaimed or covered by national media or that national folk dance journals or organizations have recognized the 
petitioner's contributions. In addition, although the petitioner himself and several of his recommendation letters 
state that he was a highly acclaimed folk dancer in Romania, the record is devoid of any documentation that the 
petitioner made original artistic contributions of major significance to his field in Romania in a manner 
EAC 04 070 51 124 
Page 5 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
While frequent performances are intrinsic to the dancing profession, the regulation requires that evidence under 
this criterion demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and not simply document an alien's 
continued activities in his or her field. In this case, the record documents the petitioner's performances at one 
festival in Denmark in 1996 and at various events in the United States between 2001 and 2003 at Romanian 
restaurants and religious and cultural celebrations. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of additional 
performances in the United States that we cannot consider because they occurred after the petition was filed. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. The petitioner submitted no evidence that any of his performances took place at major folk dancing 
competitions or festivals, participation in which might demonstrate national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner states that he was a co-founder of the Romanian folk dance group, Datina, and the record shows 
that the petitioner formed a Romanian youth folk dance group, Dragalina, in the United States. While the 
petitioner may have performed a leading or critical role for these groups, the record is devoid of any evidence 
that Datina or Dragalina have distinguished reputations consistent with national acclaim in Romania or national 
acclaim in the United States that extends beyond the Romanian-American community. Consequently, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a Romanian 
folk dance performer and instructor placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(A), and his 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.