dismissed O-1A Case: Ballroom Dance

identifjring data deleted to 
prevent clearly ur~wa-ranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Room 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 07 273 54624 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that of'fice. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a ballroom dance instruction school, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as an advanced ballroom dance instructor for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition on November 15, 2007, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary satisfied the standards for nonimmigrant classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts 
as a ballroom dance instructor. In denying the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary has been nominated for or been the recipient of a significant national or international 
award, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A), or that he has met three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed a timely appeal on December 18, 2007. The director treated the appeal as a 
motion to reopen or reconsider, and dismissed the motion on January 16, 2008, without disturbing the original 
decision. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $5 103.3(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) provide that the official who made the unfavorable decision 
being appealed shall review the appeal unless the affected party moves to a new jurisdiction, and shall decide 
whether or not favorable action is warranted. The reviewing official, in this case, the service center director, may 
treat the appeal as a motion to reopen or reconsider and take favorable action. However, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(2)(iv), if the reviewing official will not be taking favorable action or determines favorable action is not 
warranted, the reviewing official shall promptly forward the appeal and the related record of proceeding to the 
AAO. 
The director did not have authority to treat the petitioner's appeal as a motion in order to render a decision 
unfavorable to the petitioner. Instead, the regulations required that the director forward the appeal directly to the 
AAO. Accordingly, the director's decision dated January 16, 2008 will be withdrawn. The AAO will adjudicate 
the timely filed appeal. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director misapplied the regulations, inappropriately disregarded the 
advisory opinion provided, and did not carefully review the facts of the case. The petitioner submits a brief in 
support of the appeal. 
Section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. The extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16,1991). 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 3 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO will address the appropriate standard for review for a petition involving the 
field of competitive ballroom dance, also known as "DanceSport." 
In this matter, the petitioner sought to classifL the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts, and 
the director applied the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iv). However, while the petitioner sought to 
classifL the beneficiary in the arts, the petitioner simultaneously claimed that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary 
criteria for aliens of extraordinary ability in athletics, as set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), although it never 
specifically cited to this section of the regulations. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary meets the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. $9 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), (2), (7) and (8). By contrast, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets 
only one of the six evidentiary criteria for aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
21 4.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). Nevertheless, rather than classifying the alien as an athlete, the petitioner requested that the 
director apply the "comparable evidence" provision at 8 C.F.R. $ 214*2(0)(3)(iv)(C), and evaluate the evidence 
according to the standard of "distinction" applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
The director strictly applied the evidentiary standard for aliens for extraordinary ability in the arts, without 
acknowledging the petitioner's claim that it had "comparable evidence" to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility. Upon review, the director should have evaluated the instant petition as a petition for classification 
of the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
First, the petitioner indicated that the petitioner meets more than three of the eight evidentiary criteria set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), which are applicable to athletes. It appears the only reason the petitioner 
chose to classifj the beneficiary in the field of arts was to take advantage of the lower standard of review 
applicable aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts. These two categories of 0-1 classification have their 
own separate statutory definitions and evidentiary criteria. The petitioner cannot choose to submit evidence 
applicable to the criteria for the athlete category and then argue for the lesser standard applicable to aliens in 
the arts field. Based on the petitioner's claims, the director had a sufficient basis to evaluate the instant 
petition under the standard for aliens with extraordinary ability in athletics. 
Further, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has formally recognized DanceSport as a sport under 
consideration for inclusion in the Olympic games, although it is not yet a medal sport in the Olympic ~arnes.' 
The recognition of DanceSport by the IOC is a clear indication that DanceSport or competitive ballroom 
dance, has evolved into a form of athletic competition. Therefore, the beneficiary should be held to the more 
stringent requirements for aliens of extraordinary ability in athletics rather than to those for artists and artistic 
expressions. 
As the AAO's review is conducted on a de novo basis, the AAO will herein address the petitioner's evidence 
and eligibility pursuant to the standard and evidentiary requirements for aliens of extraordinary ability in 
1 
See "Recognised Sports," available at ~http://www.olym~ic.orduk/s~orts/reco~nizedindex uk.asv.> 
(accessed on January 30,2009). The International DanceSport Federation (IDSF) received full recognition in 
1997 from the IOC and is a member of the Association of the IOC Recognised Sports Federations. See 
"About IDSF," at <http://www.idsf.net/index.tpl?id=5> (accessed on January 30,2009). 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 4 
athletics. 
 As the petitioner claims to meet the evidentiary criteria applicable to athletes, it would serve no 
useful purpose to remand the petition to request further evidence. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the jeld of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiaiy criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thejeld of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) 
 Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) 
 At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) 
 Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) 
 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 or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) 
 Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) 
 Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 5 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) 
 Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional journals, or other major media; 
(7) 
 Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) 
 Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other 
reliable evidence. 
(c) 
 If the criteria in paragraph (0)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (WE) and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and an appellate brief. The beneficiary in this case is a native 
and citizen of Russia is described by the petitioner as "a champion ballroom dancer, teacher, choreographer 
and judge." He attended the Khabarovsk State Institute of Art and Culture, graduating in 2006 with the 
qualification "Lead Instructor of Choreographical Artistic GroupITeacher." The petitioner seeks to classify 
the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as an advanced ballroom dance instructor. 
The director determined that the beneficiary did not meet the regulatory criteria for an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the field of ballroom dance instruction. On appeal, the petitioner asserts the following: 
It may be true that the alien did not provide three of the required categories as an instructor, it 
is also true that such proof is not required in the instant case. Notwithstanding the fact that we 
submitted this petition for a teacherlinstructor, our level of proofllevel of distinction was 
required for a dancer/instructor/teacher and choreographer and not solely for an instructor. 
Prevailing law does not require the alien to establish distinction as a "ballroom dancing 
instructor" which is the basis of your denial. Distinction as a ballroom dancer rather then 
[sic] as a ballroom instructor [although that is the offered position] should be sufficient to 
qualify the alien in the visa category. 
In support of this assertion, the petitioner notes that there is no requirement that the beneficiary is coming to 
the United States to perform services requiring a person of 0-1 caliber. 
The petitioner's argument that the petitioner need only demonstrate that the beneficiary qualifies as an athlete 
of extraordinary ability based on his career as a competitive ballroom dancer is not persuasive. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(l) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 6 
In this instance, petitioner clearly indicates that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States as a 
ballroom dance instructor . While a competitive dancer and a dance instructor share knowledge of dance, the 
two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive dancing and dance instruction are not the 
same area of expertise and the USCIS will not assume that an alien with extraordinary ability as an 
competitive dancer has the same level of expertise as a coach or instructor in the sport. This interpretation 
has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. 111. 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. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not 
imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. 
Despite the consistent history noted by the Court on this issue, we recognize that there exists a nexus between 
participating in a particular sport as a competitor and coaching or instructing. To make a determination on the 
issue, we have found the following balance to be appropriate. In a case where an alien has clearly achieved 
national or international acclaim as an athlete or in a particular skill such as competitive dancing and has 
sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching or instructing at a national level, we can consider the totality of 
the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can 
conclude that instructing or coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. An instructor who has an 
established successful history of instructing dancers who compete regularly at the national level has a credible 
claim; an instructor of novices does not. 
Based on the above, we will address the evidence regarding the beneficiary's accomplishments as both a 
competitive ballroom dancer, and as a ballroom dance instructor. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel prize, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then 
it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. Here the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received such an award, nor does the evidence demonstrate 
that the beneficiary has coached, instructed or trained any competitive dancers who have received a major 
internationally-recognized award. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the petitioner 
must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
8 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
In order to meet the first criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), the petitioner must submit documentation of 
the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. With respect to the beneficiary's career as a competitive dancer, the petitioner provided copies of more 
than 15 first, second and third place awards he received between the years 1996 and 2002 for ballroom dance 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 7 
competitions and events held in the cities of Khabarovsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the Khabarovsk region of 
Russia. In a letter dated November 6, 2007, the petitioner emphasized that the awards submitted establish the 
beneficiary was the champion of the "entire city" on numerous occasion, finished second in city competition on 
many occasions, and placed third in the entire Far East region of Russia among all dancers who have achieved 
competition status. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary "is the best there is in his entire city," and that "being 
the first place winner in a championship event hosted by the entire and for the entire state or region is tantamount 
to having reached the cream of the crop status which is not normally encountered." Upon review of the awards 
and the petitioner's explanation regarding the awards, it cannot be concluded that the city, regional or state awards 
the beneficiary earned are nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
The AAO notes that the beneficiary's resume refers to his achievement of the level of finalist in the 
"Championship of Russia" in the years 2004 and 2005, and as "Champion of the Far East Championship" in 
2005. While these events appear to be more significant that the beneficiary's various city and regional 
competitions, the record does not contain copies of any awards the beneficiary received at such events or 
background information regarding these events.* Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCali,fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
Finally, the AAO notes that the record contains a "Certificate of Representation" issued to the beneficiary by 
the Federation of Sport Ballroom Dances of Khabarovsk Region. The letter refers to the beneficiary as the 
"Absolute Champion of Latin-American Program in Khabarovsk region," and "the champion of dance shows 
in Siberia and the Far East," and indicates that he was selected to represent the Khabarovsk Dance Sport 
Federation at the Russian Open Championship of Dance Shows in the city of Irkutsk. While this evidence 
appears to show that the beneficiary was selected to compete in his sport at a national level, it is insufficient to 
establish that he has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his 
field. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the first criterion as a competitive athlete. 
The AAO will now turn to the question of whether the beneficiary can establish this criterion as a ballroom 
dance instructor. The record contains a recommendation letter from the Federation of Sport Ballroom Dances 
of Khabarovsk Region which states that the beneficiary worked as a trainer at the "Fantazia" Center of 
Ballroom Sport Dances in Khabarovsk, Russia from 1999 until 2007. According to the letter, the beneficiary 
taught Latin American ballroom dances to children ages seven to 12 and to dancing pairs ages 13 to 18, and 
was ranked Best Teacher of Ballroom Dances in Siberia and the Far East in 2006. Finally, the letter indicates 
that the beneficiary's students have been "prizewinners at big international competitions," and identifies two 
The AAO notes that the record does contain several documents in the Russian language, not accompanied 
by English translations, which may be copies of additional awards received by the beneficiary. Because the 
petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not 
probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
, WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 8 
first place finishes in "world" competitions, one second place finish in a "world" competition, and one third 
place finish in national competition. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter referencing The Center of Dance Sport Club "Fantazia," which states 
that among its 375 students are the champions of the Khabarovsk Regional Competition of 2005-2006, 
finalists of the Open World Championship in England in 2005, winners of the Italian Championship of 2006, 
and champions of the ballroom dance tournaments of Russia, Siberia and the Far East. The letter indicates that 
the club's success depends on the beneficiary as an instructor of ballroom dances. 
The petitioner also submitted various photographs of the beneficiary with his students, who all appear to be 
children or teenagers, at various competitions, some of which depict the students with trophies or awards. 
In denying the petition, the director observed that the petitioner did not identify the names of the students who 
have won national or international prizes or provided corroborating documentary evidence in the form of 
certificates, awards, or publications to establish that the beneficiary's students were prizewinners at "big 
international competitions." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not give sufficient weight to the recommendation letter 
from the Federation of Sport Ballroom Daces of Khabarovsk Region or the beneficiary's ranking as the best 
teach of ballroom dancing in the region in 2006. 
Upon review, the AAO finds insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary has won national or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes as a ballroom dance coach or that his students have won 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The evidence shows that the beneficiary has been 
regionally recognized as being an outstanding ballroom dance instructor, but there is no evidence of any 
national or international prize or award issued to him based on his accomplishments as an instructor or 
teacher. 
Further, the AAO concurs with the director that additional documentary evidence is needed to establish that 
the beneficiary's students have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. The petitioner has opted not to provide the names of the beneficiary's claimed award-winning 
students or documentary evidence of their awards. Again, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. Finally, the evidence indicates that the beneficiary has only been teaching dancers 
competing at the junior level. Even if the petitioner had submitted copies of the awards, an international 
award received by a 9-year-old student would not carry the same evidentiary weight as an international award 
received by a competitor at the adult, professional level, without some additional explanation as to how the 
sport is governed at the junior level. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(ii), the 
petitioner must document 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 
WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 9 
experts in their disciplines or fields. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The 
AAO notes that the petitioner has provided evidence that the beneficiary has been issued a "Grade 111" 
adjudicator's license by the Dance Sport Federation of Russia on June 20,2005. While it appears that issuance of 
the license would entail membership in the Federation, the record does not contain any explanation to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary's membership required outstanding achievements, as judged by national or 
international DanceSport experts. Therefore, the AAO concludes that the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
To meet the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3), the petitioner must submit published material in 
professional or major trade publications or major media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for 
which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessary translation. Again, the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The petitioner 
provided partial translations of what appear to be three newspaper articles that mention the beneficiary's 
performance in dance competitions as a teenager. The petitioner did not provide the title, date or author of the 
articles. It cannot be concluded that this evidence constitutes published material in a professional or major trade 
publication or "major media." The petitioner provided no recent materials that would show that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim as a competitive dancer or coach, nor did it provide any articles relating to the 
work of the beneficiary's students in the sport of competitive dance. The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
To meet the fourth criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4), the petitioner must submit evidence of the 
beneficiary's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied 
field of specialization to that for which classification is sought. As noted above, the beneficiary was granted a 
"Class 111" adjudicator's license by the Dance Sport Federation of Russia in 2005. The license shows that the 
beneficiary officiated in six events since his license was granted. Five of those events were regional competitions 
with participants at the junior, pre-teen and juvenile level (between the ages of seven and 18), one was a regional 
competition that included juniors, "pre-teens/DI and amateurs," and one was a "Russian competition" that 
included juniors, and "juvenile/Dl , D2" couples. 
As noted above, evidence submitted to satisfj, the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) must demonstrate 
sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field. Therefore, while the 
petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary has served as a judge in ballroom dance competitions, 
USCIS must also evaluate the evidence qualitatively to determine whether it supports a finding that the 
beneficiary is one of the small percentage of people who have risen to the very top of his field. Given that the 
beneficiary obtained an adjudicator's license from the Dance Sport Federation of Russia, the fact that he was 
subsequently invited to judge at Dance Sport competitions is not in and of itself indicative of his sustained 
national or international claim and recognition for achievements in the field. The record contains no evidence of 
the requirements for obtaining an adjudicator's license and no explanation as to the significance of the beneficiary 
"Class 111" license. Absent such evidence, it cannot be determined that award of the license is consistent with a 
level of sustained national or international recognition. Further, the beneficiary has a relatively short history of 
serving as a judge in DanceSport competitions, appears to have only judged juniors, pre-teens and juveniles, and 
has acted as an oficiator at only one national competition. The evidence submitted is not indicative of the 
beneficiary's sustained recognition for achievements in the field, and, accordingly, does not meet the fourth 
criterion. 
. WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 10 
The fifth criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iiiXB)(5). The petitioner 
does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, and the AAO finds no evidence in the record relevant to 
this criterion. The record contains reference letters that acknowledge the beneficiary's skills and success as a 
dancer and dance instructor, but none of the letters indicate that the beneficiary has made original contributions of 
major significance to the field. 
Similarly, the petitioner has not attempted to establish that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in the 
field in professional or major trade publications or other major media, or otherwise claimed that the beneficiary 
meets the sixth criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(d). 
The petitioner does claim that the beneficiary meets the seventh criterion, which requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence that he was employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. 8 C.F. R. $ 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7). Counsel refers to the "Certificate of Representation" 
from the Federation of Sport Ballroom Dances of Khabarovsk Region, which indicates that the beneficiary was 
selected to represent the Khabarovsk Dance Sport Federation at the Russian Open Championship of Dance Shows 
in the city of Irkutsk. While the beneficiary's selection to represent his region in a national competition is 
notable, the petitioner did not demonstrate that his participation in a one-time athletic event should be equated to 
employment in a critical or essential capacity. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary has been employed as a ballroom dance instructor at 
two Dancesport clubs, "Fantazia," and "Eldorado." However, the petitioner has not claimed that this employment 
was in a critical or essential capacity or provided evidence that these establishments have a distinguished 
reputation. In a recommendation letter discussing the beneficiary's employment with "Fantazia," the Federation of 
Sport Ballroom Dances of Khabarovsk Region described the beneficiary as a "highly qualified professional" and 
"master teacher with limitless ability to teach ballroom sport dances to children and adults." 
The petitioner also provided a letter from Eldorado, indicating that the beneficiary is "very talented, hard- 
working, creative and efficient," "very appreciated by his pupils," and "very helpful in organization of festivals in 
the organization." 
While these statements are highly complimentary, they do not establish the beneficiary's employment in a critical 
capacity, demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the employer, or reflect the beneficiary's sustained national 
or international recognition for his achievements in the field. 
The eighth and final criterion requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary has either commanded a high 
salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
The petitioner provided a letter dated September 1, 2006 from Eldorado, which indicates that the beneficiary's 
annual salary of 2 10,000 rubles per year is twice the amount of median salary for a director of ballroom dances in 
the Khabarovsk region of Russia. The letter indicates that the beneficiary's salary is based on consideration of his 
"extraordinary talent" and "commendable input" as a teacher and performer. The petitioner has not provided any 
. WAC 07 273 54624 
Page 11 
documentary evidence supporting the claim that 210,000 rubles is a high salary for a ballroom dance instructor, 
and it is not clear from where the employer, Eldorado, obtained its information. At a minimum, the employer 
could have provided evidence of how the beneficiary's salary compares to other instructors within its 
organization. Without additional evidence, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary has previously 
commanded a high salary. The petitioner does not claim that the proffered salary of $30,000 per year constitutes a 
high salary for an advanced ballroom dance instructor. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has extraordinary ability in athletics, which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation, as required by section lOl(a)(lS)(O) of the Act. The petitioner 
submitted no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award and the 
documentation submitted does not meet three of the eight other evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for nonirnmigrant classification under 
section 101 (a)(15)(0) of the Act and the petition must be denied. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. 
Rec. S 1 8247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 199 1 ). In order to establish eligibility for 0- I classification, the petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The 
beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision dated January 16,2008 is withdrawn. The appeal is dismissed.