dismissed EB-1A Case: Sport Dance

(b)(6)
MATTER OF Y-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT . 30, 2015 
PETITION : FORM I-140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a choreographer, sport dance judge , coach and instructor , seeks classification as an 
"alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts and athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the 
employment-based immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks 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 . The Petitioner 
asserts that he intends to "join the management " of the 
in , California to continue his work in the sport dance (competitive ballroom dancing) 
field. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. In the brief, the Petitioner asserts that 
he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (v), (vii), and (viii). For the 
reasons discussed below , the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent pmt, 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 
Matter of Y- W-
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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991 ). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner can 
demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), 
aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality" and that users 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts 
that he meets or for which the Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
The Petitioner submitted an "Extraordinary Achievement A ward" (20 11) from the 
In addition, the Petitioner provided material from the 
website listing the organization's objectives and sporting events, but the submitted 
material did not mention the Petitioner's award or demonstrate its national or international significance. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
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. There is no documentary evidence showing that 
the Petitioner's Extraordinary Achievement Award was recognized at a level commensurate with a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the sport dance field. 
The Petitioner also submitted four "Outstanding Art Talent Awards" (2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012) 
and a "Special Artistic Contribution Award" (2012) from the 
. In addition, the Petitioner provided material from the website introducing the 
association and identifying its executive leadership. The submitted material did not mention any of 
the Petitioner's awards or demonstrate that they are recognized nationally or internationally as 
denoting excellence in the field. The Petitioner was the president of the the aforementioned 
awards are indicative of institutional recognition from the organization that he served rather than 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that a February 2015 letter from 
demonstrates "the national scope of the awards given by 
the ' In his letter, asserted that th~ "has made great contributions in 
revolutionizing sport dancing over the past decades." However, according to the information 
submitted from the website, the association was founded in December 2008, and had 
existed just over six years at the time authored his letter. As assertion regarding 
the contributions "over the past decades" is inconsistent with the evidence of record, we 
cannot assign any evidentiary weight to his statement. Where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable , users is not required to accept or may give less weight 
to that evidence. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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 two certificates from the 
dated December 2012. The first certificate states that the Petitioner was "awarded 
FELLOWSHIP by The second certificate states that the Petitioner was appointed 
"Executive President" 
2 We note that the word "international" is misspelled in the circular seal on both certificates. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matt er of Y- W-
According to Chapter IV, Article 27 of the bylaws provided by the Petitioner, the 
requirements for becoming "chairman, vice chairman, president and vice president" of the 
council are: 
1. Must have highly professional skills with good morality, and be qualified to be 
recommended, selected, and appointed; 
2. Must have great impact in the industry; 
3. The highest age is less than 70 years old; 
4. Must have normal work capacity with healthy condition; 
5. Must have not been deprived of political rights of criminal punishment ; 
6. Must have full capacity for civil conduct; and 
7. Must have high-level professional knowledge regarding the business of the 
Requirements 1 and 3 - 6 are not indicative of outstanding achievements . With regard to 
requirements 2 and 7, the bylaws do not define the terms "great impact in the industry" or "high­
level professional knowledge ," and the submitted documentation contains no specific examples or 
any further explanation. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that having "great impact 
in the industry" and "high-level professional knowledge " constitute outstanding achievements . 
Furthermore , there is no documentary evidence showing that council members ' achievements are 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The Petitioner provided a certificate dated 2008 stating that he was "appointed Vice President of 
According to Chapter IV, Article 29 of the 
bylaws submitted by the Petitioner, the "requirements for being President and Vice President" of the 
council are: 
1. Recommending, Selecting and Appointing members who possess good moral integrity 
and strong professionalism; 
2. Having great impact in 
3. Should not exceed maximum age of 70 years; 
4. Having good health and be able to complete regular work; 
5. Have not been deprived of political rights for criminal punishment; 
6. Possessing full capacity for civil conduct; and 
7. Having a high level of expertise in business. 
Requirements 1 and 3- 6 do not reflect outstanding achievement s. Regarding requirements 2 and 7, 
the bylaws do not define the term "great impact in · and "high level of expertise," and the 
submitted documentation 
contains no specific examples or any further explanation. Accordingly , the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that having a "great impact in the and demonstrating a "high 
level of expertise" are commensurate with outstanding achievements. In addition, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that council members ' achievements are judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
The Petitioner submitted a June 2011 certificate from the 
stating that he was "admitted into membership as an Associate of the In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted information from the website stating that individuals who 
gain a professional dance teaching qualification with the are accepted into membership. The 
website information further states: "There are three levels of teaching qualification, the first 
being Associate level, progressing to Licentiate and finally Fellowship." There is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that Petitioner's entry level "Associate" membership in the required 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or intemational experts. 
The Petitioner provided a November 2011 certificate from the 
stating that he was "appointed President of The Petitioner also submitted 
the "Bylaws of the " Chapter IV, Article 22 of the Federation's bylaws state that the 
"selection requirements for President, Vice President and Secretary" are: 
1. Follow the government's policy; 
2. Have a special expertise in our Association's business scope and have great influence in 
the industry; 
3. The age should not exceed 70 years old as required by Ministry of Civil Affairs; 
4. Having good health and be able to complete regular work; 
5. Have not been deprived of political rights for criminal punishment; 
6. Possessing full capacity for civil conduct; and 
7. As required by the 
govemrnent officials above the leading roles of divisions or equivalents should 
not serve as the leader in an Association. 
We note that the Petitioner was appointed as President of the of the and not 
of the entire Federation. There is no indication that requirements 1- 7 apply to the multiple 
regional branches and not just the national Federation. Regardless, requirements 1 and 3 - 7 are not 
indicative of outstanding achievements. With regard to requirement 2, the bylaws do not define the 
terms "special expertise" and "great influence in the industry," and the submitted documentation 
contains no specific examples or any further explanation. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that having "special expertise" and "great influence in the industry" constitute 
outstanding achievements. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence showing that Branch 
officers' achievements are judged by recognized national or intemational experts in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted a February 2013 People 's Republic of China Civil Affairs Department 
registration certificate identifying him as the "Legal Representative," an October 2013 
certificate from the stating that he was selected as the association's President in 2008, and a 
printout from the website listing him as President. On appeal, the Petitioner mentions a 
letter from Deputy Chairman of the who asserts that "under [the Petitioner's] 
leadership, the . has developed and expanded significantly, hosting competition, events, and 
training and brought significant impact to the Chinese Ballroom industry." The regulations have a 
separate category of evidence for performing in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
establishment , 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the Petitioner's role for the will be frnther 
addressed under that criterion. While commented on the Petitioner's leading role for the 
he did not 
discuss the association's specific membership requirements. There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the fieldfor which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The Petitioner submitted a March 2014 article entitled 
' that was posted on the website. The author of the article was not 
identified as required by this regulatory criterion. In addition, the article is about the aforementioned 
conference and meeting, and not the Petitioner. The plain language of the regulation requires 
"published material about the alien." While the article briefly mentions the Petitioner's speech, the 
article is not about him. 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). Furthermore , although the Petitioner provided 
information about the from its website, there is no evidence showing that the website 
is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. 
The Petitioner provided two articles that were posted on the 
October 2012 article, entitled 
website iri 2010 and 2012. The 
mentions that the Petitioner organized the scoring for the 
competition, but the article is about the competition itself and not the Petitioner. With 
regard to the 
2010 article, entitled ' 
the author was not identified . In addition, although the 
2010 article states that the Petitioner gave a speech and served as co-chief examiner, the article is 
about the aforementioned training program and not the Petitioner. Furthermore, while the Petitioner 
submitted information about the from its website, he did not provide evidence demonstrating 
that the website is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. 
The Petitioner also submitted an October 2012 article entitled -that was posted on the website of the 
While the article briefly mentions the Petitioner among 
numerous other attendees and participants , the ruticle is not about him. Furthermore, although the 
Petitioner provided information about the from its website, there is no evidence showing that 
the website is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
The Petitioner provided a 2012 article entitled 
that was posted on the website of the 
but the author of the material was not 
identified. While the article briefly mentions the Petitioner's welcome speech, the article is about the 
aforementioned ballroom dance event and not the Petitioner. In addition, the Petitioner submitted 
information about the from its website, but he did not submit evidence demonstrating 
that the website is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major 
media. 
The documentation provided also included four articles that were posted at The author 
of the article entitled (20 11) was not identified. In addition, the article 
mentions the Petitioner in just one sentence. The article is about the 
rather than the Petitioner. With regard to the articles entitled " 
(2011) and 
_ (2011), their authors were also not identified. While the articles stated that 
the Petitioner and two other officials gave speeches, the two articles are about the aforementioned 
ballroom dancing events and not the Petitioner. In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article 
entitled (20 1 0) 
that also mentions the Petitioner in one sentence. The article is about the 
rather than the Petitioner. 
In regard 
to the Petitioner submitted information printed from the website asserting that 
"[i]t is one of the most influential websites in China 's dancing field." USCIS need not rely on self­
promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, a.ff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as 
to the magazine's status as major media). The Petitioner also provided an online printout from 
as a ' China Top Ten Well-known Dancing 
Website," but there is no documentary evidence indicating the process by which the websites were 
ranked. In addition, the Petitioner 
provided a website traffic repmt reflecting 1,007 daily 
unique visitors to the website . There is no evidence showing that the number of daily 
unique visitors to elevates the website to a form of major media relative to other online 
sources. 
The Petitioner also submitted two articles entitled 
2011) and 
(May 
(November 20 12) that were posted on the website of 
the , but their authors were not identified. In addition, as the first article is about the 
, they do not constitute 
Petitioner. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the 
major trade publication or other form of major media. 
published material about the 
website is a professional or 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-W-
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 allied field of specification for which classtfication is 
sought. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation reflecting that he has served as a judge at more than twenty 
sport dance competitions. Accordingly,· the evidence supports the Director's finding that the 
Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 
The Petitioner initially submitted a digital video disc (DVD) entitled 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the festival's program 
brochure reflecting that he was Director of the Organizing Committee and Chairman of the Judging 
Panel, a May letter from the granting permission to the to hold the competition, 
information about the event sponsors, and the competition regulations. While the preceding 
information indicates that the Petitioner played an important role for the event as a primary organizer 
and lead judge, there is no documentary evidence showing that his work has affected the field in a 
substantial way or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the sport 
dance field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his "record as a judge - and as a chief judge - in multiple 
national and international level competitions" meets this regulatory criterion. In addition, the 
Petitioner mentions his memberships and executive leadership positions as further evidence for this 
regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner's memberships and multiple instances of participation as a judge have already been 
considered under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Furthermore, the regulations have a separate category of evidence for 
performing in a leading role for an organization, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the Petitioner's 
executive leadership positions will be addressed there. Evidence relating to or even meeting the 
aforementioned regulat01y criteria is not presumptive evidence that the Petitioner also meets the original 
contributions of major significance criterion. Because separate criteria exist for membership, judging, 
performing in a leading role, and original contributions of major significance in the field, US CIS does 
not view them as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. The plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires"[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions" that are "of major significance in the field." 
Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original artistic or athletic 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28, 31 (3rct Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's aforementioned judging, 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
membership, and leadership positions constitute original artistic or athletic contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that his · _ 
DVD also meets this regulatory criterion. The cover of the DVD identifies the Petitioner as 
the DVD's "General Producer" and the as the publisher. Other individuals who contributed 
to the DVD are identified as choreographers, technical guides, commentators , and demonstrators. 
The Petitioner also provided information about the DVD from the website which states: 
"This tutorial was produced by [the _ and it's also [the I internal material." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a November 2012 article entitled"[ 
-
The self-promotional coverage ofthe DVD's release appearing on the website ofthe · 
is not sufficient to demonstrate that the DVD has impacted the sport dance field beyond the 
such that the Petitioner's work constitutes an artistic or athletic contribution of major significance in 
the field. The plain language of the regulation requires that the original contributions be "of major 
significance in the field." The DVD 's promotion on the website of the Petitioner 's association is 
insufficient to show its contribution to the field or that it is of"major significance." 
The documentation provided also included a list compiled by the entitled 
According to the submitted list, 186 DVDs were distributed to organizations in 
three were distributed to organizations in , and one was 
distributed to an organization in The Petitioner has not established that the 
distribution list reflecting that 190 copies of the DVD were sent to various dance 
organizations shows that the DVD has been utilized at a level commensurate with a contribution of 
major significance in the field. The list does not indicate that the DVD guide had substantial 
distribution outside of southwestern China or was otherwise of major significance to the sport dance 
field. 
The Petitioner also submitted four letters of support mentioning the 
DVD. For example, asserted that the Petitioner "has 
successfully established a scientific evaluation system to instruct future dancing stars. 
which was supervised by [the Petitioner], has 
been widely used as the only and mostauthoritative guideline in southwestern China." While 
stated that the Petitioner 's system has been utilized regionally as a "guideline in southwestern 
China," there is no evidence demonstrating the DVD guide has impacted the sport dance field as a 
whole, or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Regardless, as previous assertion concerning the contributions "over the past 
decades" was inconsistent with the evidence of record, we cannot assign any weight to his statement 
about the DVD guide. See Matter o.fHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
In addition, the letter of support from , Deputy Chairman of the stated that the 
Petitioner's video disc of dance instructions "is widely used across the nation for judging and 
evaluation standards" and that he uses the Petitioner 's video "because it represents the best 
instruction material to teach world-class level dancing and the proper techniques in our highly 
9 
(b)(6)
Matt er of Y- W-
regimented field." Similarly, a letter from of the 
China, asserted that his organization uses the Petitioner's "instructive DVD for Ballroom 
Dancing as the main source of teaching guidelines provided by our training center." Lastly, 
of the China, stated that the DVD is the primary 
source of his organization's ballroom dancing teaching curriculum and that the DVD "is currently 
the most widely used instructive teaching tutorial of ballroom dancing in the China Sports Dance 
Industry." Although the aforementioned individuals indicate that they have utilized the DVD guide, 
there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the DVD guide has affected the sport dance 
field at a level commensurate with a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, with regard to the letters from the letters 
did not include an address, a telephone number, or any other information through which the 
individuals can be contacted. The lack of proper contact information as a means for verifying the 
information in their letters diminishes the reliability of their statements. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of limited probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d 
at 134-35; Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795 (holding that an agency "may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements . . . submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way 
questionable "). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility . !d. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the Petitioner 's work has been unusually influential, substantially 
impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance , 
the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets this regulatory criterion . 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the fi eld at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the production and distribution of his 
DVD meets this regulatory criterion, and that the Director "failed 
to apply the law of the case doctrine. "3 The law of the case doctrine limits relitigation of an issue 
once it has been decided in an earlier stage of the same litigation . Hamilton v. Leavy, 322 F.3d 776, 
3 ln a June 2014 decision on a previously filed Form l-140 , , the Director , without any further discussion 
of the issue, stated that the sale and distribution of the Petition er's DVD at event s and competitions satisfied the 
regul atory criter ion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
786 (3d Cir. 2003). The Director's determination regarding an issue pertaining to a previously filed 
Form I-140, however, does not constitute an earlier stage of this proceeding, but rather a separate 
matter altogether. Each petition is a separate filing and must be decided on a case-by-case basis upon 
review of the evidence of record. The Director 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'r 
1988). Furthermore, USCIS is not required to treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. See 
Sussex Eng'g Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 
(1988). 
In this instance, the Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence showing the manner in which 
the DVD was displayed at dancing events and competitions. In addition, as the Petitioner was the 
"General Producer" of the DVD, the specific artistic component of his work has not been 
established. Furthermore, the purpose of the DVD is instructional as opposed to an artistic display 
of the Petitioner's dance movements or choreography. Not every performance before an audience is 
an artistic exhibition or showcase. While we will evaluate evidence for this regulatory criterion on a 
case-by-case basis, generally, this criterion has not included performing artists. See Negro-Plumpe 
v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1 , *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that 
performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). See also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2013). As the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient documentation that his work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, he has not 
provided qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation 
Organizing Committee of the 2014 
the Organizing Committee of the 2014 
indicating that he served as Deputy Director of the 
Mainland China, and 
Director of the Organizing Committee of the 2014 
Deputy Director of 
, an Executive Member of the Chairman of 
Executive President of the r====-----==---- Vice President of the 
and President of the While the Petitioner performed in a leading role for the 
aforementioned organizations , there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that any of them 
have a distinguished reputation. The program brochures, information from the organizations' 
websites, and media announcements concerning the competitions do not set the organizations apart 
from others' in the sport at a level indicative of a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, with regard 
to the letters from that mention the . as previously discussed, 
letter provided conflicting information about the association's duration, and neither letter included 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
any information through which 
of their statements concerning the 
could be contacted. Accordingly, the reliability 
is diminished. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion , the next step would be a final merits detetmination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated : (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise ." 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless , although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not demonst rated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.4 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedin gs, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matt er ofOtiend e, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) . Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltan e v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . In any future proceedin g, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matte r. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) ; see also INA §§ 103(a)(l) , 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Numb er 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003) ; 8 C.F.R . § 2.1 (2003); 8 
C.F.R. § 1 03.1(f) (3)(iii)(2003) ; Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 l&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
juri sdiction to decide visa petition s). 
12 
. Matter of Y- W-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qfY-W-, ID# 14263 (AAO Oct. 30, 2015) 
13