dismissed EB-1A Case: Somatic Movement Therapy

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
l'.? 
.- Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ~8%2m 
1990 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decislon of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
t decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
-"-* *y9 
;I Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
I) 
Administrative Appeals Office 
:s 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California 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. § 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. 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. The director also appears to 
have questioned whether the petitioner's field is truly a science. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserted that the director's request for additional evidence (RFE) simply "regurgitated" 
the regulatory requirements without requesting specific evidence. The record does not support this 
characterization. The RFE requested specific evidence, such as "the minimum requirements and criteria used to 
apply for membership in the association in which the alien claims membership." The petitioner's remaining 
assertions and the evidence submitted will be discussed below. 
Before discussing the petitioner's eligibility, we ackndwledge that the director has approved nonimmigrant visas 
for the petitioner in a similar classification. We do not find, however, 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 on the 
evidence of record. 
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. 8 204.5(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. 
§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. 
d%.*'-%, 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a registered somatic 
movement therapist. The petitioner began her career as a dancer. We note that some of the evidence, such as 
her scholarship and the majority of the published material about the petitioner, relates to her work as a dancer. 
The petitioner, however, does not seek to continue her performing career. Rather, she seeks to provide somatic 
movement therapy. As such, any evidence relating to her recognition as a dancer is not relevant to this petition. 
In order to evaluate the petitioner's eligibility, it is necessary to define her field. On Part 6 of the petition, the 
petitioner asserts that she is a somatic movement therapist. The record is not persuasive that somatic movement 
therapy constitutes its own field. The petitioner provides the following nontechnical description of her job: 
"Consult with individual patients, clients and organizations. Teach and lecture at seminars and training 
session." The petitioner is a trained dancer and is certified in movement techniques and massage. 
We note that, according to the Occupational Therapy Handbook, "all States require physical therapists to pass a 
licensure exam after graduating from an accredited physical therapist educational program before they can 
practice." While the petitioner has certification fioin some trademarked programs of limited reputation, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that any of these programs constitute accredited physical therapist educational 
programs or that she is licensed by the State of California to practice as a physical therapist. Thus, the petitioner 
does not qualify as a physical therapist. 
The Occupation Outlook Handbook provides the following description for recreational therapists: 
Recreational therapists provide treatment services and recreation activities to individuals with 
illnesses or disabling conditions. They use a variety of techniques to treat or maintain the 
physical, mental and emotional well-being of clients. Treatments may include the use of arts 
and crafts, animals, sports, games, dance and movement, drama, music and community outings. 
(Emphasis added.) While a "bachelor's degree in therapeutic recreation is the usual requirement for entry-level 
positions" in this field, "training in art, drama, or music therapy" is sufficient for some positions. Thus, the 
petitioner's work appears to fit within this field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a 1982 travel and study grant from the Committee on Arts and Arts Education in 
Brussels. The petitioner asserts that the grant was to study dance. In his RFE, the director requested evidence 
of the significance of any awards. The petitioner's response did not include any reference to this criterion. The 
I The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
director concluded that the petitioner did not submit any evidence relating to this criterion in her field of claimed 
expertise. The petitioner does not directly contest this conclusion on appeal. 
Scholarships that fund training in one's field are not awards that can serve to meet this criterion as the most 
experienced members of the field do not compete for such scholarships. Regardless, the scholarship to study 
dance was not issued in recognition of the petitioner's excellence as a movement therapist. In fact, the petitioner 
did not obtain any certification in that field until 1993. Ultimately, a scholarship to study dance in 1982 is not 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim as a movement therapist as of the date of filing 20 years 
later. 
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. 
The petitioner submitted her certificates affirming her training in various movement therapy techniques. The 
petitioner also submitted evidence of her membership in the Association for Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology 
and Health (APPPAH). In response to the director's RFE requesting the membership requirements, the 
petitioner submitted the certification requirements for her credentials, but no materials regarding the 
membership requirements for APPPAH. The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that her 
membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members. The exhibits submitted on 
appeal do not address this criterion. 
Certification awarded upon completion of specified training is not a membership. Even assuming the petitioner 
established the prestige of the organizations that certified her competency in various techniques, a license to 
practice in one's field is only a criterion for the lesser classification "aliens of exceptional ability" pursuant to 
section 203(b)(2) of the ~ct; not for the more exclusive classification sought by the petitioner. 
While the petitioner is a member of APPPAH, the record does not establish that this association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. As such, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzjication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted an unsigned letter confirming the petitioner's appearance on "Everybody's Angels," 
which airs on TCI Cable Channel 27 "only in San Francisco." The petitioner was interviewed on KUSF-FM 
radio of the University of San Francisco on at least three occasions. The petitioner submitted promotional 
materials for seminars led by the petitioner on Body-Mind Centering. The petitioner also submitted materials 
about the Lar Lubovitch Dance Troupe, none of which mention the petitioner by name. Finally, the petitioner 
submitted some foreign dance reviews. While some of these foreign reviews mention the petitioner by name, 
the reviews are not primarily about the petitioner. 
2 
We note that this lesser classification normally requires a labor certification from the Department of Labor, 
the entity with the jurisdiction to evaluate the claim made by several of the petitioner's references that there 
is a shortage of workers in her field. 
The director requested evidence of the significance of the above materials, including the circulation data for the 
media that printed the articles. In response, the petitioner no longer claimed to meet this criterion. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted published materials about her work in the field in 
major media. The petitioner's appeal does not address this criterion. 
The cable and radio broadcasts appear limited to the San Francisco area and cannot be considered major media. 
They did not provide the petitioner with national exposure. Promotional materials, advertisements and press 
releases are not as persuasive as independent journalistic coverage. Finally, the dance reviews are not primarily 
about the petitioner and do not relate to the field of expertise claimed, movement therapy. In light of the above, 
we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedJield of specification for which classiJication is sought. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen, founder of Body-Mind Centering, 
asserting that the petitioner has taught this technique. In addition, the petitioner submitted an invitation to 
participate in a health forum. The record lacks evidence that this forum took place prior to the date of filing. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from Bobbi Jo Lyman, Editor-in-Chief for the 
Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health published by APPPAH. indicates that he 
invites "people with certain specializations in this discipline to be part of the peer review process." He then 
asserts that the petitioner is "a member of the Editorial Board of the journal. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that the individuals whose work she was judging were at the same professional 
level as the petitioner. The petitioner does not address this criterion on appeal. 
Evaluating one's students is inherent to teaching. We cannot conclude that every instructor enjoys national or 
international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner's teaching duties cannot serve to meet this criterion. In addition, 
demonstrating or discussing one's technique at a symposium does not involve judging the work of others in 
one's field. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that she presented her work at the symposium prior to 
the date of filing. A petitioner must establish her eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter 
of Katigbak; 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
The letterhead for the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health lists three editors and an 
associate editor. The petitioner is not one of these individuals. Rather, it appears that the "editorial board" is 
simply the pool of peer-reviewers the journal uses to evaluate manuscripts submitted for publication. Serving in 
an editorial position is more persuasive than serving as a peer-reviewer. Nevertheless, it is not inherent to the 
field of recreational therapy to serve as a reviewer for a peer-reviewed medical journal. As such, the petitioner's 
service as a peer-reviewer could serve as minimal evidence to meet this criterion. The letter from Mr. Lyman, 
however, does not identify which manuscripts the petitioner reviewed and whether these reviews occurred prior 
to the date of filing. As stated above, the petitioner must establish eligibility as of that date. Id. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she met this criterion as of the petition's filing date. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the3eld. 
Initiallv. the ~etitioner asserted that her experience in the field constitutes an original contribution to the field. . * - 
The petitioner is certified in Centering and aquatic therapy. She did not 
develop any of these the Feldenkrais technique and there are 2,000 
practitioners 
The petitioner submits letters from several institutions where she has worked and from the families of children 
to whom she has administered therapy. They attest to the petitioner's unique training in both and 
Body-Mind Centering, asserting that few movement therapists are certified in both techniques. Not every 
combination of training, however, can be considered a contribution of major significance to the field. We note 
that Martha Eddy, President of the International Somatic Movement Education and Therapy Association, asserts 
only that the petitioner's integration of these two methods "may one day be recognized as a milestone in our 
field." Speculation that the petitioner's integrated approach may someday be viewed as significant is 
insufficient to meet this criterion. 
of the Physical Therapy Center, notes that the etitioner's methods "are an ideal supplement to 
the traditional physical therapy and rehabilitation programs.'7aoes not indicate that any accredited 
university has considered integrating the petitioner's techniques into their physical therapy curricula. 
Other references assert that the petitioner's integration of movement therapy with her instruction of tango dance, 
called "Intimate Embrace Tango," constitutes a contribution of major significance. Susan Stein, a marriage and 
family therapist who is one of the petitioner's dance students, asserts: 
Because the tango is a dance that "takes two," we are called to learn to work diligently with our 
partners. As a marriage and couples therapist, I am awed at the healthy relationship skills [the 
petitioner's] teaching style cultivates. WE don't just learn how to lead and following the 
traditional sense. We learn how to lead by deeply sensitizing ourselves to our partners' every 
step and position, but "tuning in" and staying receptive at the same time that we take care of 
ourselves and move with confidence. And as "followers," we learn to surrender willingly and 
trust, while also maintaining our own sense of balance. 
6 
oncludes that the petitioner "is a pioneer in the field of somatic movement therapy as exemplified by 
er unprecedented integration of this approach with her in-depth understanding of Argentine Tango." This 
single testimonial does not establish that the integration of movement therapy with dance instruction constitutes 
a contribution of major significance to the field of movement therapy. The record is absent evidence that the 
petitioner's techniques have been adopted by other dance instructors or have otherwise impacted the field. 
In addition, the petitioner's references assert that the petitioner has produced results for children with conditions 
that do not respond to conventional medicine, such as cerebral palsy and autism. They also attest to the benefits 
the petitioner could provide to her clients. It is inherent to movement therapy to improve the abilities of one's 
clients. Not every movement therapist who performs the services requested of her can be said to have made a 
contribution of major significance to the field of movement therapy. Moreover, mere testimonials from satisfied 
clients are not evidence of the petitioner's impact on her field. 
Page 7 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence that somatic movement therapy was recognized by the 
medical community as a whole. In response, the petitioner argues that somatic movement therapy constitutes 
complimentary medicine and is a science. The petitioner submits materials demonstrating the popularity of 
complimentary medicine and that the government hnds an office to research such medicine. 
We do not question that physical therapists are members of the medical community and that, therefore, their 
work would fit within the sciences. The Occupational Outlook Handbook, however, reveals that every state 
regulates physical therapists. The petitioner is not a licensed physical therapist and we will not consider her to 
be part of this field. 
In addition, we do not question that fitness and movement are integral to health and addressing disabling 
conditions and injuries. While many scientists have studied the benefits of fitness, we cannot conclude that 
every coach, fitness instructor or movement therapist is a scientist. 
Moreover, while we do not question the recent popularity of so-called complimentary or alternative medicine, 
we will not consider "traditional" or "alternative" medicine as a separate field. 
There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or 
unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice 
is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body 
techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and 
cultural interest. 
Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD, "Alternative medicine meets science," Journal of the American Medical 
Association 280: 1618-1619, 1998. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted "The Feldenkrais Method" by Mark Reese. Page two of this document states: 
"Although it possesses significant medical and therapeutic benefits, Functional Integration [a segment of the 
method] is neither medical nor therapeu thodology." Similarly, on 
appeal, the petitioner submits an article b investigating the benefits of 
the Feldenkrais method. The article is ain Management. In the 
discussion section of the article, the authors admit that the study was neither controlled nor blind, yet they 
conclude that their results are "very promising." The very next sentence, however, asserts that whether the 
positive results "were due to a placebo effect or to some more specific scientific explanation is largely 
irrelevant." The authors conclude that the patients "gained" from providers who "are reassuring and positive 
about the modality's ability to diminish pain and facilitate healing." This discussion is hardly evidence that the 
Feldenkrais method has been recognized in the medical community as a breakthrough treatment for pain or 
movement-related problems. Regardless, as stated above, the petitioner did not develop this method. The 
record contains no evidence that any researchers are investigating the potential of the petitioner's integration of 
Feldenkrais with Body-Mind Centering. We note that the most glowing evaluations of the Body-Mind 
Centering approach are from the founder of that technique and the president of the institution that promotes it. 
The letters submitted on auueal are not uersuasive that the ~etitioner herself has contributed the field of 
movement therapy. a chiid psychologist, opines that "alternative and complimentary medical 
therapies such as the somatic movement programs that [the petitioner1 teaches and utilizes can provide an - - - A 
effective tool to support and promote wellness." This statement does not explain how the petitioner's methods 
are superior to those of other movement therapists or even other practitioners of somatic movement therapies. 
a ph sician attests to the improvements his patients have undergone as a result of being 
referre to the petitioner. 
-m in general. 
oes not explain whether such results are atypical for movement therapy 
Overall, the record establishes that the petitioner's employers and clients have been satisfied with her work. We 
must presume that the words "of major significance" are not superfluous and, thus, have some meaning. See 
Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters.,5 19 U.S. 202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). Thus, 
not every original technique can serve to meet this criterion. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner has 
impacted the field of movement therapy as a whole. Thus, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to have performed a leading or critical role for the Bridge School, the Institute of Holistic 
Healing Studies at San Francisco State University, the Feldenkrais Guild of North America, and the Physical 
Therapy Center. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the Executive Director of the Bridge School confirming the petitioner's 
position as a lead consultant in movement therapy. The accompanying materials establish that the Bridge 
School enjoys a distinguished reputation nationally. In addition to its recognition as a school, the institution 
"disseminates the information learned and technology developed at our Northern California campus to 
individuals throughout the world." The petitioner did not submit any evidence that the Bridge School has 
disseminated her techniques, crediting her as the developer of these techniques. 
Kenn Burrows, a member of the core faculty at the Institute for Holistic Healing Studies, invites the petitioner to 
speak again at the institute based on positive feedback from previous presentations by the petitioner. The 
materials accompanying this letter indicate that the Holistic Health "certificate" offered by this institute is 
available to both matriculating and non-degree students. Although this institute has sponsored the petitioner for 
non-immigrant visas, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner has actually worked for the institute. 
~ssistant Director for the Feldenkrais Guild, asserts that the petitioner presented her Intimate 
Embrace Tango techniques at one of the guild's conferences. Once again, the record does not establish that the 
petitioner has ever worked for the guild. Moreover, while the attached materials affirm that the Feldenkrais 
method has some degree of recognition, it is not clear that the guild enjoys a distinguished reputation nationally. 
under of the Physical Therapy Center, affirms his intent to represent the petitioner "for a 
series of seminars, lectures and training sessions as well as personal consultations at sites in California, 
Michigan and across the United States." while the petitioner claims on her Form G-235A submitted in SUDDOI-~ - 
of her adjustment application that she worked for this center as a movement therapi 
confirm this employment. whiletimates that the petitioner's earning 
record contains no evidence of the petitioner's actual income. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner resubmits the evidence regarding the Bridge School and claims 
to have played a critical role for the Women's Building in San Francisco. Specifically, Jovida Ross, Community 
Resource Coordinator, asserts that the petitioner is performing treatment sessions for low income and 
underserved women and is an invited present for the Women's Resource Fair. The date of the fair is after the 
date of filing. 
The director concluded that while the Bridge School enjoyed a distinguished reputation, the petitioner had not 
established that she played a leading or critical role for that school. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 
director "unfairly discounted" the letter from the school. 
We concur with the director's analysis. The record does not establish that the role of lead consultant is a leading 
or critical role for the Bridge School. The petitioner does not even claim to have worked directly for the school 
on her Form G-325A. The petitioner has not established that every consultant utilized by the school, but not 
hired, plays a leading or critical role. The record lacks evidence regarding how many such consultants the 
school utilizes and how often her services were utilized. As stated above, while the school disseminates the 
most significant developments at the school, there is no evidence it has disseminated a summary of the 
petitioner's work. 
Regarding the remainder of the petitioner's claims, presenting one's work at a conference is not playing a 
leading or critical role for the entity as a whole, which we interpret to generally require more long-term 
relationship. In addition, the record lacks evidence that the other entities enjoy a distinguished reputation 
nationally. 
In light of the above, we find that the petitioner has not established that she meet this criterion. 
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 recreational 
or movement therapist 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 recreational or movement therapist, 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.