dismissed EB-1A Case: Performing Arts

MATTER OF A-L-P-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 15, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a performer and choreographer, seeks classification as an individual "of 
extraordinary ability" in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign 
nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
I 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
provided documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, and 
argues that she meets the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the leading or critical role 
criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate her extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in her field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
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, 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-L-P-
(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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to "those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If she does not submit this documentation, then she must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). · 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "each 'piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at 
least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of the record shows sustained national or 
international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very 
top of .the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In this case, the Petitioner has not shown that she is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level 
similar to that of an Oscar from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. As such, she 
must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) through submission of a blog about her posted on the website of the 
In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met the judge of the work of others 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) based on her participation in the 
as an adjudicator of young dance performers ages to The Petitioner has also 
demonstrated that her performances and choreography meet the criterion for display at artistic 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-L-P-
exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). For instance, the Petitioner has appeared 
on stage as a cast member in off-Broadway productions. Accordingly, she has met at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requlSlte initial evidence, we will conduct a final merits 
determination. Specifically, we evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international acclaim, and that her achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, making her one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeayor. In a final merits determination, we analyze the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if her successes are 
sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(i) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this 
matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The awards claimed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) do not indicate national or international acclaim for 
th,e Petitioner, nor reveal a high level of recognition for her work as a performer or choreographer. For 
example, the Petitioner indicated that a short film in which she choreographed a bowling alley 
dance sequence, received an for in 2013. 
While an is an internationally recognized award, the Petitioner has not shown she was the 
recipient of this award. Rather, director, writer, and main character, 
received the award, according to the listing from submitted by the Petitioner. She also 
submitted a list of various international film festival awards won by and its subsequent feature 
length production but there is no evidence showing that the awards were presented 
to the Petitioner for her choreography rather than to for his direction, writing, and 
acting. As such, the and film festival awards presented to for and 
are not evidence of the Petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for her excellence in choreography or performance, or evidence of her acclaim at the very top of 
the field. 
At the in 2013, the Petitioner received an 
for choreographing The Petitioner provided a 
hand-written award certificate, and an article entitled Announces 
that was posted at The aforementioned article listed the 
Petitioner's name, and indicated that out of" 185 entri"es" in the festival more than 30 received 
There are no readership statistics for the article or other evidence showing that 
inclusion on a list of numerous winners at is commensurate with 
national or international recognition, and being one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted information about 
none of the articles mention her ' 
3 
from various other websites, but 
' in choreography or explain its significance 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-L-P-
in the performing arts. The burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and 
achievement associated with her particular award. An August 2014 article in 
announced the upcoming 2014 but noted that "quantity does always equal quality" in 
terms of the festival's participating performers. In addition, the Petitioner submitted articles and blogs 
promoting or mentioning the festival from the websites of the 
and The article 
available on website, listed and explained 
the fringe festival concept: "Fringes 
are generally distinguished by short, unconventional performances, 
low-cost tickets and a large share of ticket sales returned to artists. Many open their stages to amateurs 
as well as seasoned acts." A quote in the from producing artistic 
director indicated that her festival adjudicators "will decline someone who doesn't need this 
opportunity. There are a lot of recognizable names that have come across my desk, and it's certainly 
not that the work wasn't good, but if you have opportunity elsewhere, then you probably don't need one 
of our slots." While the preceding articles offer information about the festival, they do not 
mention the Petitioner's in choreography or establish that her award has been 
recognized at a level commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the performing arts. 
At the 2012 
award for 
ceremony event program, a photograph of her with the award, 
from the organizer's website at 
while the Petitioner provided articles from 
mentioning or promoting the 
the Petitioner received the 
She submitted the award 
and information about the 
In addition, 
and 
gala, there is no objective documentation reflecting their online readership. 
and its award 
The submitted articles 
describe as' 
but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the award ceremony has a 
significant national or international following. The Petitioner has not established that her ' 
award has commanded a level of recognition indicative of a nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Nor has she demonstrated 
that the award elevates her to the very top of the performing arts field. 
With respect to published material about the Petitioner, the Director determined that only one article 
met the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which provides: "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 classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and 
author of the material .... " The record contains a blog post from written by 
about the Petitioner entitled but the date of the blog post was not 
identified as required by the plain language of the regulatory criterion. The Petitioner also submitted a 
media release stating that the publication "has 46 million monthly U.S. unique visitors" 
and that its website "has over 50,000 bloggers - from politicians, students and celebrities to academics, 
parents and policy experts- who contribute in real time on the subjects they are most passionate about." 
While the is a form of major media, there are no readership statistics for 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-L-P-
blog showing that her coverage of the Petitioner is an indicator of sustained national or international 
acclaim in the performing arts. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that a single blog article written about 
the Petitioner over the span of her career sets her apart from almost all other actresse~, dancers, and 
choreographers in the performing arts field. 
None of the remaining articles submitted under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) were about the Petitioner and 
in major media. She provided various online reviews of but they do 
not discuss the Petitioner. For example, the movie reviews of m and the 
focus on and the acting cast. In addition, the Petitioner offered 
reviews of various theatrical productions in which she participated, but they are about the shows and not 
the Petitioner. The plain language of the regulatory criterion, however, requires "published material 
about the alien." Articles that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, 
e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). Accordingly, the articles provided under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) do not exhibit national or international acclaim for the Petitioner, or elevate her to the 
very top of the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's participation as judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), she submitted a March 2009 adjudicator "Contract for Service" for the 
Canada) reflecting compensation of "$175 per session." In addition, 
she provided a list of 11 schools that participated in the and an adjudicator 
schedule reflecting that she evaluated dance students ages 6 - 18. There is no supporting evidence 
demonstrating the national or international reputation of this local youth dance festival. The Petitioner 
has not established that adjudicating student dancers from 11 schools is indicative of her 
national or international acclaim as a choreographer or performer. 
The Petitioner offered two adjudication agreements with the organizers of the 
dance tour competition for two locations in reflecting "a fee of $30/hr." The Petitioner 
also provided a February 2015 letter from the director of stating that she "has 
previously been hired for contract work" and "fully completed her obligation." The aforementioned 
adjudication agreements, purportedly from a representative of were unsigned and 
thus of limited evidentiary value. Competition information submitted from the 
website stated: "Every dancer rect:(ives an award and walks away feeling like a winner regardless of 
overall placement . . . . Each location is planned with family scheduling in mind." Without 
evidence showing the national or international stature of the youth dance 
competitions in or documentation reflecting the Petitioner was chosen because of her 
renown in the field, we cannot conclude that her service as an adjudicator was reflective of sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
The record included a letter to the Petitioner from the owners of dated 
March 9, 2007, but the letter was not signed. The letter stated: "[W]e are very excited to confirm 
that you have been selected to adjudicate at the upcoming competition. 
The competition will take place Fri. May 12th, through Sunday May 14th, 2006, held at 
Ontario." The date of the letter, March 9, 2007, 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-L-P-
is not consistent with the mention of an "upcoming" competition in May 2006. Despite the Director 
having informed the Petitioner of this inconsistency in the decision, she has not resolved the issue 
with independent, objective evidence. Matter of flo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
Regardless, as there is no documentary evidence showing the prestige of the 
competition, the Petitioner has not established that her participation as an adjudicator 
was commensurate with:national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
With respect to display of the Petitioner's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), she did not contest any of the Director's findings for the criterion in her appeal. The 
Petitioner previously submitted documentation of her performances or choreography at venues such as 
the at 
and 
While the submitted documentation shows that the Petitioner acted, danced, or 
, choreographed for various stage performances, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that her 
work resulted in sustained national or international acclaim or recognition. For example, starring in or 
choreographing a commercially successful Broadway show generally offers a higher level of distinction 
than performances in off-Broadway or community theater productions. Without evidence 
distinguishing the Petitioner's stage appearances and choreography from almost all others in her field, 
she has not shown that she has risen to the very top of the performing arts field .. 
Regarding the Petitioner's performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with a 
distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the appeal brief mentions her role as a 
choreographer for production company, which produced the 
Oscar winning short film and its feature length version While the 
Petitioner choreographed the same bowling alley dance sequence used in both films and 
attested that her work was critical to success, we cannot conclude that her work 
on this one dance scene was indicative of sustained national or international acclaim as a choreographer. 
The letters of support from and cofounder and 
producer, do not state that the Petitioner has worked on any other projects for their company. Although 
the Petitioner may have performed in an important role during filming of the dance sequence, she has 
not established that her role was leading or critical to beyond that project. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes organizational pharts for 
and but the charts were apparently prepared by 
the Petitioner in support of her appeal. There is no evidence that the charts were created or distributed 
by representatives of the aforementioned organizations. Regardless, the charts alone are not sufficient 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner's roles for the organizations were leading or critical, and that the 
organizations had a distinguished reputation. 
She also submits various letters of support from her teachers, employers, and project collaborators. For 
example, a teacher and director at the in New York, mentions that the 
Petitioner "has been a student for several terms now in [his] acting classes" and that he directed her lead 
acting in the play in 2015 at the In addition, a member 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-L-P-
of the Board of Directors of describes the Petitioner's leading role in during 
the 2015 season. Furthermore, executive and artistic director at and 
a theatre and opera director at both discuss her work as a choreographer in 20 15 
for "an exploratory lab production funded by the Lastly, 
an actor and television executive, states that he co-starred with the Petitioner in 
at the in 2015, and offers praise for her recent work on The Petitioner's 
acting in and choreography for post-date the filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Worker, on October 14, 2014. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, 
we cannot consider any acting or choreography roles performed after October 14, 2014, the date the 
petition was filed, as evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
Regardless, her activities with the aforementioned productions do not establish that she worked in a 
leading or critical role for and in a manner similar to that of their boards of 
directors, faculty, or managerial staff. 
headmaster at the boarding 
· school, indicates that the Petitioner has choreographed four production$ for his school "for anywhere 
from 20-30 students" and that "her dances are always creative, memorable, and exciting." While the 
Petitioner may have played an essential role for the school's productions of 
and there is no evidence demonstrating that her position as 
choreographer was leading or critical for the such as those who serve on its faculty and 
administration. Furthermore, there is no supporting documentation showing that the school or its 
theatrical productions have a distinguished reputation in the performing arts. 
an actress, writer, producer, and performing arts educator, notes that she hired the Petitioner 
to choreograph a performance piece at the in in February 2016. 
Again, as the Petitioner's work occurred after the date the Form I-140 was filed, her role as 
choreographer for performance in 2016 does not establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner previously claimed that she performed in a leading or critical role for 
and at least 20 other 
organizations. In his decision, the Director mentioned several of the preceding organizations and 
determined that the record did not indicate that the Petitioner's role for them was leading or critical. In 
the appeal brief, the Petitioner mentions only her role for and 
does not offer any arguments concerning the other organizations, her role for them, and their 
reputations. The documentation of record does not differentiate the Petitioner's role from the other 
actors, dancers, choreographers, educators, organizers, managers, and staff so as to demonstrate her 
leading role, and does not reflect that she contributed to the organizations in a way that was 
significant to their success or standing, so as to demonstrate her critical role. The submitted 
evidence for the Petitioner 's roles and organizations does not substantiate her sustained national or 
international acclaim, and is not indicative of her status as being among the very top of the field. 
7 
Matter of A-L-P-
In summary, the Petitioner's achievements in the aggregate confirm that she is a talented dancer, 
actress, and choreographer. She has worked on a number of productions and gained the respect of her 
educators, employers, cast members, and artistic , collaborators, who believe she is capable of 
contributing to the U.S. theatre and film industries, and to the performing arts field. Her achievements 
at this stage of her career, however, do not demonstrate that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim or is already one of the small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. A review of the record in the aggregate does not confirm that she has 
distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national 6r 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. She, therefore, 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-L-P-, ID# 10864 (AAO Sept. 15, 2016) 
8