remanded EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 In Re: 32749688 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a dance professional, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Petitioner' s receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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. 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-2. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a dance professional who competes in dance competitions and is involved in dance­
related artistic work as a choreographer and a dance coach. The record includes documentation to 
demonstrate the Petitioner's activities as a dance professional in various international settings. The 
Petitioner intends to continue to pursue his career in "dancesport." 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the regulatory criteria by providing 
evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field of expertise, and through the 
artistic display of his dancesport. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vii). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he also meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), (viii), and (ix). The 
Petitioner states that the Director did not provide a full analysis of the evidence submitted or 
sufficiently consider certain evidence. As more fully discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Because the Petitioner has shown that he 
satisfies at least three criteria, we will remand the matter to the Director to evaluate the totality of the 
evidence in the context of a final merits determination to determine whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim, his status as one of the small percentage 
at the very top of his field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. 
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, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The plain language of this criterion requires evidence (1) of published material, (2) that the published 
material contains the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation, (3) that the 
published material is about the Petitioner relating to the Petitioner's work in the field, and (4) that the 
published material qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media. The 
2 
petitioner's evidence must satisfy every one of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence of published material in major media publications about the Petitioner should establish that 
the circulation ( online or in print) or viewership is high compared to other statistics and identify the 
intended audience. Further, for purposes of this criterion, while published material need not be 
primarily or only about a petitioner to qualify, it cannot be solely about their employer or another 
organization with which they are associated. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.2. 
The record includes copies of several articles, published either digitally or in print, by media in the 
Petitioner's country of origin, which discuss or mention the Petitioner and his work. The Director 
acknowledged that an article, Ipublished in a general news publication, The Star [S-], 
partially met the plain language of this criterion as the article included the title, date and author of the 
article, and discussed his work in the field. (We observe that the Petitioner also initially submitted 
another article published in S-'s digital version, [ ] 
which includes the same qualifying aspects as the article discussed by the 
Director in the denial.) The Director, denied the petition, concluding in part that as S- did not qualify 
as major media, S-'s published articles about him did not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that S- did not qualify as major 
media, and that he is eligible for this criterion based on these and other articles. Based on our de novo 
review of the record we conclude that there is sufficient evidence from a variety of sources that 
suggests more likely than not, that S- was a major media outlet in the Petitioner's home country when 
the articles about the Petitioner were published in 2019. For instance, R-'s Digital News Report 2020 
indicates that S- ranked 5th for general news media in the Petitioner's country in that year, while a 
report about S- from a data analytics firm, S-W-, shows that S- ranked 4th for news media there in 
2023. We also note that according to SCimago Media Rankings, S- ranked 5th in that nation for general 
news media in 2023 - when the petition was filed, and S- currently ranks 1st for such media in that 
country. See generally https:l/www.scimagomedia.com/rankings.php. We therefore agree with the 
Petitioner that he meets this criterion, and the Director erred in concluding otherwise. 
For the reasons discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
further review and entry of a new decision. Because the Petitioner has established his qualifications 
under criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), and (vii), on remand, the Director should conduct a 
final merits review of the evidence of record. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for the handful of individuals at 
the top of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). As contemplated by Congress, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
the required sustained national or international acclaim, consistent with a "career of acclaimed work 
in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence evaluating whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international 
acclaim, his status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor, and that his 
3 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4