dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dance
Decision Summary
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner, a dancer with the touring company 'Riverdance: The Show,' failed to establish that she would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than a minimally qualified U.S. worker. While the AAO agreed her work had intrinsic merit and national scope, it found she did not sufficiently distinguish herself from the other dancers in the large troupe to warrant a national interest waiver.
Criteria Discussed
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
PUBLIC COPY epartment of Homeland Security FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTE Date: Nl 1 8 2005 LIN 03 160 53885 PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professi ns Holding an Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: I INSTRUCTIONS: 1 Th~s is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All docum nts have been returned to decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to t at office. -II'/ Robert P. Wiemann, Director Administrative Appeals Office I Page 2 DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by th Director, Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. i The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1 153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. The employment as a dancer. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found for classification as an alien of exceptional ability, but that the petitioner had not the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in requiring evidence that disti the petitioner from other members of the touring company "Riverdance: The Show" and determining eventual plans to teach were disqualifying. We agree with counsel that the director's eventual plans to teach are misplaced. The petitioner intends to continue director. Due to the physical nature of dance, it is not realistic to expect careers as long as researchers, engineers or business professionals. Under athlete would be able to qualify for the national interest waiver. Thus, we this issue. For the reasons discussed below, however, we concur with the does not sufficiently distinguish the petitioner from other members of her troupe. Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: (2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees o Aliens of Exceptional Ability. -- i (A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrant who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or wh because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially bene t prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the Unite States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an emp oyer in the United States. i (B) Waiver of Job Offer. (i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General the national interest, waive the requirement of subparagraph (A) services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be employer in the United States. As stated above, the director found that the petitioner is an alien of exceptional a ility. That classification, however, normally requires a labor certification. Thus, the only issue to be decided s whether a waiver of that requirement is in the national interest. t Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Add provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the Ju tionally, Congress did not liciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States econo ically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). i The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as exible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard st make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the national case is to be judged on its own merits. Supplementary information to the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 1998), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an having the same minimum qualifications. 1990 (IMMACT), published It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective nation 1 benefit, it clearly must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to he national interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the nation I interest cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is sed here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demo strable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. i We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, step dancing, and that the proposed benefits of her work, awareness and enjoyment of this form of d would be national in scope. It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than the position sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. A achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver ecause she actually meets the eligibility requirements for a higher classification, aliens of extraordinary a ility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act. As stated above, the director concluded that the eviden e did not distinguish the petitioner from other members of her troupe. On appeal, counsel asserts that the irector applied to strict a E standard; such distinction is only required for aliens seeking eligibility pursuant t section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. While an alien need not establish eligibility pursuant to 203(b)(l)(A) to btain a waiver of the labor certification requirement in the national interest, we note that such eligibility is he basis of counsel's initial claim. In fact, counsel continues to assert that the petitioner has distinguished he self from other members of her troupe. i We cannot conclude that the national interest waiver was intended as a blanket for every member of a large dance troupe that successfully tours nationally. Thus, while the petitioner demonstrate the type of personal national acclaim required for aliens of extraordinary ability, some her from other members of the large troupe (42 dancers) is required. The petitioner was not a member of the original "Riverdance" cast that arguable credit for influencing the field when it premiered in 1995 according to the background information petitioner. Rather, she joined a "clone" troupe, "Riverdance: The Show" in 1997, after an international sensation. While both troupes are viewed as equally talented, with the "Riverdance: The Show" cast is breaking new ground in the We note that the record 'contradicts one of counsel's assertions regarding e petitioner's distinction. Specifically, counsel asserts: Both the Culguy Herald and the Edmonton Journal, featured [the peti in an article which discussed the tremendous success of the show and how her role from night to night, because she is one of only two dancers trained for number." The actual quote in both articles, both identical and written by Alison Mayes of the algary Herald states: 9' [The petitioner's] Riverdance roles vary from night to night, since two da ers are trained for every "spot" in every number. Thus, it is clear that every role has two dancers who are prepared to perform that not that two dancers are prepared to perform every role as stated by counsel. The article does not state or that it is atypical for the petitioner to be trained in several roles as each role must have two dancers to perform that role. Conceivably, all dancers are trained in multiple roles, especially given the that injuries frequently fare up, up to four dancers have been unable to dance at one you're slightly injured, they don't put you on for risk of further injury." Peter Smith, Vice President of the Irish Dancing Commission, asserts that the "was one of only two female dancers given full contracts with ['Riverdance.']" Mr. moes how he has first hand knowledge of this fact and the references associated with "Riverdance" do this assertion. = the casting director for "we immediately contract for the new into the cast were not offered similar information in the record. In an interview in petitioner's "Riverdance" audition: I Page 5 She wasn't sent home with good news - in fact, she had no idea how well sh did at all. t "They didn't tell us anything (at the audition)," [the petitioner] said. 'the ix of us were in the final line-up dancing our faces off, and that was it.'' "They just told us they'd be in touch." It wasn't until [the petitioner] heard at other competitions throughout the ye r that she had been one of three Canadians to be chosen for the troupe she auditioned for. founder of the Comerford School of Irish Dance, asserts th t the petitioner was made "assistant Dance Director for Riverdance, a position which was only ever given to a erson from Ireland." Once again, Mr. foes not explain how he has first hand knowledge of this p sition and Mr. does not con inn this assertion. Rather, Mr. asserts that the petitio 1 er "was so company that she was asked to do an administrative secondment at the Riverdance in Dublin. She worked at the office there for 4 months in 1999 and co-ordinated the Irish companies and also a promotional event team, over 150 dancers in total.'' and not based on the petitioner's abilities as a dancer. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel distinction within the troupe is evident from her salary. Counsel relies on a letter from Contracts Manager for the producers of "Riverdance: The Show." ~r states: To the best of my knowledge, an average Irish Dancer in the entertainm nt industry would normally earn a fee of approximately US$500.00 per performance wee . However, [the petitioner] was paid US$755.00 per week to perform with Riverdance - Th Show as Abhann Productions was very keen to retain the services of a dancer of [the petition r's] abilities on an ongoing basis. i That the petitioner earns more than the average Irish dancer in the industry is no letter does not establish the significance of the petitioner's role within the troupe. October 2001 contract indicates that her wages were $508 per performance wee e first year, $635 per performance week after one continuous year, and would only reach $755 per ante week after the provision of services for three continuous years. Thus, the petitioner's wages a d on her number of years of experience rather than unique talent. As stated in Matter of New York D 222, the number of years of experience is simply one criteria for aliens of Because exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of the job offertlabor certi hinging on the degree of experience required for the profession, while relevant, itive to the matter at hand. Id. The media coverage of the petitioner is local to her place of residence and only siniles her out as a Canadian selected to perform with "Riverdance." They do not distinguish her a, , y,...,,.,.. troupe. We note that the documentary appears to have been created hv a <l~h<irliarv of the company that produces "Riverdance: The Show' Page 6 Manager of asserts that the documentary only aired "on ocal programming." While the documentary follows the experience of petitioner and a fellow Canadian with I "Riverdance: The Show," it does not suggest that the petitioner's dance has been particularly influential in the w rld of Irish dance. I As the evidence discussed is not persuasive evidence distinguishing the petitioner m the members of the three touring Riverdance troupes, the remaining letters providing general praise the petitioner's talent are insufficient. On appeal, the petitioner merely resubmits documents already part record of proceedings and considered above. As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress t every person qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the of a job offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent to grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Secti 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1 . The petitioner has not sustained that burden. T This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States accompanied by a labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.