remanded EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 13, 2024 In Re: 33517000 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professional dancer, seeks classification under the employment-based, first­
preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
Successful petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category must demonstrate "sustained 
national or international acclaim" and document recognition of their achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, contrary 
to the Act, the Petitioner did not demonstrate: her extraordinary ability in her field; her intent to 
continue working in the field in the United States; or her work's substantial prospective benefit to the 
country. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked evidence and misunderstood 
law. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that she established: her intent to continue work in her field in the United States; 
her work's substantial prospective benefit to the country; and satisfaction of the required number of 
initial evidentiary criteria regarding extraordinary ability. We will therefore withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for a final merits determination and entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise 
commensurate with "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Evidence must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international recognized award" 
or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 If a 
petitioner meets either standard, USCIS must then make a final merits determination as to whether the 
record, as a whole, establishes sustained national or international acclaim and recognized 
achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field's very top. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 201 0); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8), 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Chinese native and citizen, entered the 
at age 17. She ranked fifth among the 16 women accepted that year from more than l 0,000 applicants. 
Four years later, in 2010, she graduated first in her class with a bachelor's degree in Chinese ethnic 
and folk dance performance. She then joined the serving as 
the national ensemble's lead dancer. The troupe travels the world, introducing foreign citizens to 
Chinese songs and dances. Later, the Petitioner was among 13 people chosen from about 20,000 
applicants to attend the _______ In 2021, while still dancing for the troupe, she 
obtained a master of fine arts degree in drama performance. Her thesis discussed the incorporation of 
dance movements into theatrical performances. 
Now in the United States, the Petitioner initially stated her intent to continue her professional dance 
career in this country. She later submitted evidence that she and two other Chinese dance colleagues 
have established a U.S. company that would operate a dance studio, training customers in a variety of 
dance styles, including modem dance, Chinese dance, ballet, and hip-hop. 
We will first consider whether the Petitioner demonstrated her intent to continue working in her field 
in the United States. 
A. The Petitioner's Intent to Continue Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability 
Noncitizens with extraordinary ability must 
"seek[] to enter the United States to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability." Section 203 (b )( 1 )(A)( ii) of the Act. This category requires neither job 
offers nor certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). But a petition 
must include "clear evidence that the [ noncitizen] is coming to the United States to continue work in 
the area of expertise." Id. 
1 If an evidentiary standard does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
l. The Area of Extraordinary Ability 
The Director and the Petitioner disagree on her "area of extraordinary ability." The Director defined 
the Petitioner's field of expertise as performance dancing, citing her listing of "dancer" as the job title 
in Part 6, "Basic Information About the Proposed Employment," of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Worker. The Director indicated that she would consider evidence only related to the 
Petitioner's dancing performances. The Director stated that "you may only apply one profession per 
Form I-140" and that "you may not combine [your professions] to meet 3 criteri[ a] and [the] final 
merits analysis [ for extraordinary ability]." 
The Petitioner contends that her area of extraordinary ability extends beyond dancing performances to 
include the broader field of "dance." She asserts: "The law requires consideration of all relevant 
capacities within the same area of expertise, encompassing [her] roles as a dancer, choreographer, and 
dance instructor." 
Neither the Act, regulations, nor USCIS policy specify how to determine a petitioner's area of 
expertise. The Director and the Petitioner cite U.S. district court decisions reaching different 
outcomes. The Director cites a decision affirming the immigration service's denial of a petition by an 
acclaimed Korean baseball player who sought to coach the sport in the United States. See Lee v. 
Ziglar, 237 F.Supp.2d 914, 915 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The court stated: "It is reasonable to interpret 
continuing to work in one's 'area of extraordinary ability' as working in the same profession in which 
one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that field." Id. at 918. 
The Petitioner, however, cites a decision finding that, where a noncitizen listed his intended U.S. job 
title as "clergyman," USCIS too narrowly defined his field as "education." Gulen v. Chertoff, No. 07-
2148, 2008 WL 2779001, *2 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2008); see also Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222, 
1229 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding that the Act "does not demand that the [noncitizen]'s extraordinary 
ability be narrowed to a specific topic of ... study or that [a petitioner] show that [they are] seeking 
to enter the United States to continue work in the specific areas for which [they have] gained acclaim 
in the past"). 
We need not follow any of the three cited cases. See Matter ofDuarte-Gonzalez, 28 I&N Dec. 688, 
690 n.2 (BIA 2023) (stating that U.S. district court cases do not bind other tribunals). But we do not 
interpret the cases to conflict, and they persuade us that the Petitioner's appropriate area of expertise 
is the broader field of "dance." All three courts examined their records to determine the noncitizens' 
areas of extraordinary ability. See Lee, 237 F.Supp.2d at 917; Gu/en, at *3; Buletini, 860 F.Supp. at 
1230. In Lee, the petitioner did not submit any evidence of recognition he received as a coach. Lee, 
237 F.Supp.2d at 917 ("[T]he record only shows Lee's achievements as a player, not a coach"). Thus, 
the record supported limiting his area of extraordinary ability to baseball playing and excluding 
baseball coaching. In contrast, the records in Gulen and Buletini showed the petitioners' respective 
acclaim in various areas beyond "education" and "nephrology," the respective fields applied by the 
immigration service. Gulen, at *3; Buletini, 860 F.Supp. at 1230. 
Similar to Gulen and Buletini, an examination of this record shows that the Petitioner garnered acclaim 
not only as a dancer but also as a choreographer and dance instructor. She submitted evidence that 
she received an "Original Choreography Award" at an international dance competition and the 
3 
honorary title of "Ambassador of Chinese Dance Aesthetic Education" at a Chinese youth dance 
competition. These materials indicate that her area of extraordinary ability extends beyond that of 
dancing performances to also include choreography and dance instruction. 
The record shows the Petitioner's receipt of acclaim as a dancer, choreographer, and dance instructor. 
We therefore find that her area of extraordinary ability is not limited to "dancer" but includes the 
broader field of "dance." 2 We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
2. The Petitioner's Intended Work in the United States 
Evidence of petitioners' intent to continue working in their areas of extraordinary ability in the United 
states may include: letters from prospective employers; evidence of prearranged commitments such 
as contracts; or statements detailing plans on how they intend to continue their work in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
In the Petitioner's initial filing, she submitted a statement, indicating: "I am eager to establish myself 
as a professional dancer in the United States. To this end, I have actively reached out and engaged 
with several organizations dedicated to the promotion of dance education and performance." She 
suggested that she might work for a specific U.S. nonprofit organization that promotes Chinese dance 
education and creation. She stated: "I am enthusiastic about joining forces with this esteemed 
organization to further my dance career in the United States." 
In response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), however, the Petitioner, for the 
first time, indicated an intent to establish a U.S. dance studio, where she stated she would both dance 
and teach. She submitted a business plan and evidence of the formation of a U.S. corporation to 
operate the studio in January 2024, more than two months after the petition's filing in November 2023. 
She stated: 
[H]opefully, I will impart the dance expertise that I've learned to those who are keen 
on dance, pass on and develop Chinese dance culture, absorb and incorporate the 
essence of Western dance culture and blend the elements of dance in varied cultural 
contexts to develop more novel and international-based forms of dance. 
The Director did not treat the Petitioner's initial statement as evidence. The record contains a 
certificate of translation regarding the statement. But the statement is in English. Because the record 
lacks a copy of the statement in a foreign language, the Director refused to consider the English 
statement. 
The relevant regulation, however, requires an English language translation for "[a]ny document 
containing foreign language." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The regulation does not conversely require a 
document containing foreign language for any English language translation. The Petitioner's 
2 Our finding is also consistent with USCIS policy regarding former athletes who seek to coach in the United States. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(A)(2) ("[I]n general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or 
international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching or managing at a national level, 
officers can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability such that USCIS can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise.") 
4 
statement did not contain foreign language. Therefore, the regulation does not apply to it. We will 
therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
The Director's RFE did not notify the Petitioner of USCTS' disregard of her statement. On appeal, 
she said that she prepared the statement in English, intending to avoid the need for a translation. We 
will therefore consider the Petitioner's initial statement. 
The Director also found that the Petitioner's initial statement insufficiently detailed how she would 
continue to work in her area of extraordinary ability. According to the Director: "Statements only 
expressing your prospective hopes of finding work or offering vague ambitions do not constitute 
detailed plans or the type of clear evidence that demonstrates eligibility under 8 C.F.R. [§] 
204.5(h)( 5)." 
The Petitioner, however, need not provide a job offer. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Thus, her statement 
that she intends to work as a professional dancer in the United States and that she has contacted 
prospective employers is sufficiently detailed. See Gulen, at *4 ("We find that, so long as regulations 
exhibit a clear intent not to require that a petitioner has an offer of employment, there is no basis for 
requiring a more precise statement of what activities he or she intends to engage in ... than [to] identify 
the categories of work they intend to seek"). The Petitioner therefore demonstrated her intent to 
continue work in her field at the time of the petition's filing. 
The Director also refused to consider the Petitioner's later evidence of her intent to establish a U.S. 
dance studio. Noting that the studio's proposed operating company was not formed until after the 
petition's filing, the Director stated that she could not consider the later evidence. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit 
request"). 
But, by submitting her initial statement that she would seek a job as a professional dancer, the 
Petitioner established her intent to continue work in her field in the United States at the time of the 
petition's filing. Her later evidence indicates that, after the petition's filing, she decided to establish a 
U.S. dance studio, which is also consistent with her broad field of dance. We acknowledge that a 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed. Matter ofIzwnmi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (AAO 1998). But the Petitioner's later plan to establish a U.S. dance studio 
does not constitute a material change based on the facts of this specific case. Establishing a dance 
studio - like seeking a job as a dancer- falls within the broad field of "dance," her area of extraordinary 
ability. Thus, consistent with 8 C .F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), the Petitioner has demonstrated her intent to 
continue work in her field in the United States "at the time of the petition's filing and ... through 
adjudication." 
The Petitioner demonstrated her intent to continue work in her field in the United States. We will 
therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
B. Substantial Benefit to the United States 
To qualify as a noncitizen of extraordinary ability, a noncitizen's work must "substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States." Section 203(b )( l )(A)(iii) of the Act. Neither the Act nor regulations 
5 
define the phrase "substantially benefit." But we have interpreted it broadly. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.(2)(A)(3). For example, we have found that a professional golfer would substantially 
benefit the United States in the future based on "the enormous popularity of golf in this country." See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 956 (AAO 1994). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the substantial benefit of her proposed 
U.S. work. Defining her field as performance dance, the Director found that the Petitioner's 
establishment of a U.S. dance studio would render her dancing "incidental" to her work as a dance 
instructor at the studio. The Director stated: "[T]he evidence does not establish how your hobby or 
incidental employment as a professional dancer will substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States." 
As previously discussed, however, the Petitioner's appropriate area of expertise is the broader field of 
"dance," including dancing, choreography, and dance instruction. Thus, both the Petitioner's dancing 
and dance instruction at the dance studio would fall under her field of expertise. Also, the record 
indicates that her teaching of Chinese dance to U.S. students would substantially benefit the United 
States by diversifying the country's dance culture. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(A)(3) 
(broadly interpreting "substantially benefit" in section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of the Act). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has demonstrated that her U.S. work would substantially 
benefit the country. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
C. Extraordinary Ability 
The record does not establish - nor does the Petitioner claim - her receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. She must therefore satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary criteria: 
evidence of the display of her work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On appeal, she contends that she also submitted evidence of: 
• Her receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in her field; 
• Published material about her relating to her work in the field; 
• Her participation as the judge of others' work in the field; 
• Her original contributions of major significance to the field; 
• Her authorship of scholarly articles in the field; 
• Her performance in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization; and 
• Her commandment of high salary or remuneration. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (viii), (ix). We must determine whether her evidence 
"objectively meets the parameters of the regulatory description." See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.(2)(B). 
6 
l. Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards 
This criterion requires "[d]ocumentation of the [noncitizen]'s receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
When adjudicating this requirement, USCIS first determines whether a petitioner - as opposed, for 
example, to their employer - received prizes or awards. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(2)(B)(l). The Agency then determines whether an award was nationally or internationally 
recognized and received for excellence in the field of endeavor. Id. Relevant considerations include: 
criteria used to grant awards; their national or international significance; the number of awardees; and 
any limitations on competitors. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that she received: 
• A second prize for creation of a solo dance at a 2011 dance competition that the Chinese 
government sponsored; 
• An "Original Choreography Award" at the grand finals of a 2022-23 world dance competition; 
• The title "The Best Young Dancer of China" at a 2012 international Chinese arts festival; and 
• The honorary title "Ambassador of Chinese Dance Aesthetic Education" at 2019 Chinese 
youth dance competition. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's awards received national or international 
recognition. We agree that the record lacks sufficient evidence of national or international recognition 
of her awards from the 2012 arts festival and the 2022-23 and 2019 dance competitions. 
The record, however, indicates that the Petitioner's award at the 2011 government dance competition 
received national recognition. She submitted two online articles from a Chinese news agency 
describing the 2011 competition as "the national highest dance competition." One article states that 
the competition received 694 applications from across all of China's 31 provinces, autonomous 
regions, and municipalities under central government control. A Ministry of Arts official told the 
news agency that most of the country's best choreographers and dancers "emerged" at these triennial 
government dance competitions and that many award-winning competition programs later became 
"excellent works" performed on stage. Also, the art director/deputy head of the Petitioner's dance 
troupe called the dance competition "truly the highest-level professional dance contest and the most 
authoritative competition in China." 3 
The Director suggested that the Chinese government may have restricted participation in the 2011 
dance competition. The Director stated: "[O]ne of the competitions appears to be Government 
sponsored, thereby limiting participants for entry by Government approval." The record, however, 
3 The Director did not consider the letter from the troupe's art director/deputy head or some other recommendation letters 
that the Petitioner submitted. The Director concluded that the letters lack the authors' addresses. See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(l) 
(requiring a letter from a petitioner's current or former employer to "include the name, address, and title of the writer"). 
That regulation, however, applies only to "[e ]vidence relating to qualifying experience or training." 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(g)(l ). 
We are considering the letter from the troupe's art director/deputy head as evidence of the Petitioner's receipt of nationally 
recognized awards. The regulation therefore does not apply. 
7 
lacks evidence that the competition's applicants required Chinese government approval. The 
Petitioner therefore sufficiently demonstrated that her 2011 award received national recognition. 
Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner submitted evidence of her receipt of a 
nationally recognized award for excellence in her field. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B) 
("[ A ]!though some of the regulatory language relating to evidence occasionally uses plurals, it is 
entirely possible that the presentation of a single piece of evidence in a specific evidentiary category 
may be sufficient.") We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
2. Judge of Others' Work 
To meet this requirement, a petitioner must submit "[e]vidence of [their] part1c1pation, 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 classification is sought." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). A petitioner must show not only their 
invitation to judge others' work, but also their actual participation in the judging. See generally 
6 USCJS Policy Manual F .(2)(B)( 1 ). 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of an April 2023 letter from the sponsor of a world dance competition, 
inviting her to serve as a judge at the event. Copies of pages from the sponsor's website contain 
pictures and biographical information about her and the other four judges. 
The Director acknowledged evidence of the Petitioner's invitation to serve as a judge. But the Director 
found that, contrary to the evidentiary requirement, her documentation did not demonstrate her actual 
"participation" as a judge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred. She points to her response to the Director's 
request for additional evidence, which included copies of a certificate from the sponsor listing her and 
the other judges, and their review notes. 
The certificate listing the judges does not establish the Petitioner's participation as a judge at the 
competition. The review notes, however, include the judges' comments after the competition's first 
day. The Petitioner's notes indicate her participation as a judge. Her notes state, in part: "In today's 
programmes, I have seen some movement mistakes caused by insufficient daily training or nervous 
emotions during the performance." Thus, the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated her participation 
as a judge of others' work in the same or an allied field. 
The Petitioner has met the evidentiary requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). We will therefore 
withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
D. Final Merits Determination 
The Petitioner has satisfied at least three of ten evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i­
x). We therefore need not consider her arguments that she meets other evidentiary criteria. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions). 
8 
USCIS must now make a final merits determination on the Petitioner's filing. The Director did not 
make such a finding. Rather than make the determination in the first instance, we will remand the 
matter. 
On remand, the Director must determine whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition of her achievements in her field, identifying her as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the field's very top. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(2). 
The Director should consider any potentially relevant evidence of record, even if it does not fit one of 
the evidentiary criteria or was not presented as comparable evidence. Id. The evidence's type and 
quality should determine the petition's approval or denial. Id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner demonstrated: her intent to continue work in her field in the United States; her work's 
substantial prospective benefit to the country; and satisfaction of at least three of ten evidentiary 
requirements regarding extraordinary ability. USCIS must now make a final merits determination on 
the petition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
9