dismissed O-1A Case: Dance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvac)' 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: APR 15 2011 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lrrmigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 10055 50304 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I 01(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
EAC 10055 50304 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vennont 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 dance studio, filed this petition seeking to classity the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of dance instructor for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his field as a gymnastics coach. The director detennined that the evidence 
submitted failed to satisty any of the evidentiary criteria applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in 
athletics pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or (8). 
At the outset, it must be noted that Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by 
requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section IOI(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Act. The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) states that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally 
recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines categories of specific objective 
evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(1) through (8). The petitioner must submit qualitying evidence for the 
alien under at least three of the eight regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility 
requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider all of the evidence submitted to satisty the 
regulatory requirements at 8 C.P.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8), as well as comparable evidence submitted pursuant to 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C). Counsel asserts that the evidence clearly establishes that the beneficiary is among 
the top ballroom dancers in the world. 
Por the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 110 l(a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of 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 ... and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability .... 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 3 
Extraordinary ability in the field 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 ofthe field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818,41819 (August 15,1994); 137 
Congo Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. The 0-1 classification should be reserved only for 
those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or profession. The 0-1 
classification is substantially higher than the old H-I 8 prominent standard. Officers involved in 
the adjudication of these petitions should not "water down" the classification by approving 0-1 
petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum, Asst. Comm'r., INS, "Policy Guidelines for the Adjudication of 0 
and P Petitions" (June 25,1992). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields 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 
(8) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) 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; 
EAC IO 055 50304 
Page 4 
(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; 
(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 (o)(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. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(8) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certiJYing to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 5 
petitioner has subm itted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with exttaordinary ability. 
Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to 
count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types 
of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the 
"final merits determination" as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
and "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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.s.C. § 1 1 53(b)(l )(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The AAO finds the Kazarian court's 
two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions 
for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on ade novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to several of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of his field or that he has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0 )(3)(ii) and (iii). 
II. Discussion 
A. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability in the United States 
EAC IO OSS S0304 
Page 6 
This petition, filed on December 18, 2009, seeks to classity the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a dance instructor. The statute and regulations require that the beneficiary seek to continue work in 
his area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section I01(a)(IS)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(1S)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(i). The petitioning dance studio seeks to employ the beneficiary "to 
teach youth Ballroom/Latin dance" and to develop its junior and youth dance programs. The petitioner has 
not indicated that the beneficiary will continue his career as a competitive dancer in the United States under 
the tenns and conditions of employment with the petitioning studio. 
The beneficiary is a 19-year-old ballroom dancer who participated In competitive ballroom dance, or 
"DanceSport" competitions from 1998 until 2008, before coming to the United States as a visitor in June 
2009. While a competitive dancer and a dance instructor may share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on 
different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise. 
This interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. I.NS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (ND. 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. 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. The court noted a consistent history in this area. 
We acknowledge the possibility of an alien's extraordinary ability claim in more than one field, such as a dance 
instructor and competitive ballroom dancer, but the 0-1 petition must be accompanied by evidence that the 
work which the alien is coming to the United States to continue is in the area of extraordinary ability. In this 
case, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary intends to continue working in the United States as a 
competitive dancer. Although the beneficiary'S competitive accomplishments as a dancer are not completely 
irrelevant and will be given consideration, ultimately he must satisty the statutory requirement at section 
IOl(a)(1S)(O)(i) of the Act as well as the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) through his 
achievements as a dance instructor. 
USCIS recognizes that there exists a nexus between playing and coaching a given sport. To assume that every 
extraordinary athlete's area of expertise includes coaching, however, would be too speculative. To resolve this 
issue, a balanced approach is appropriate when reviewing the evidence in the aggregate in the final merits 
detennination. Specifically, in a case where an alien has achieved recent national or international acclaim as an 
athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching 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 coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. A coach or instructor who has an established 
successful history of training athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; a coach 
of novices does not. As discussed below, the beneficiary in this matter appears to have only limited experience 
as a dance instructor, and has no documented achievements as an instructor. 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 7 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Id. Given that the regulations specifically cite to the Nobel 
Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for 
athletics) an Olympic Medal. The director determined that the petitioner submitted no evidence to meet this 
criterion, and the petitioner has raised no objection to this finding. 
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. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria: l 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor 
In a letter dated December 15, 2009, counsel for the petitioner provided a list of the beneficiary's "major awards 
or prizes" received during the years 1998, 1999,2003 through 2006, and 2008. The beneficiary's first, second and 
third place finishes are listed below:' 
1998 
• 1" Place in Student Ball, Cup Dance, International Dance Sport Federation (lDSF) 
1999 
• 1" Place in Festival Dance Sport Cup Amur 1999, IDSF 
• 2nd Place, Ballroom Sport Dance, Winter Devieu 1999 
2002 
• 3'd Place in Vladivostok 2002 at the XIIDSF Festival 
• I" Place, Open Festival, Amur Couple 2002, IDSF 
• 1" Place, Student Ball, Cup Dance Sport, IDSF 
• 3'd Place, First Open Festival Amur Couple 2002, IDSF 
• 3'd Place, Mayor Cup, Nahodka 
• 3'd Place, Leader Dance Studio 
• 3'd Place, First Open Festival Amu, IDSF 
I The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
2 The beneficiary's fourth, fifth and sixth place finishes have been om itted from the list provided by the 
petitioner, as the petitioner has not established that placing in these positions resulted in the receipt of an 
"award or prize for excellence in the field" as required by the plain language ofthe regulations. 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 8 
2003 
• 3'd Place Junior II Latin Program, IDSF 
• 2nd Place, Junior Open, 14 International Ballroom Festival 
• I" Place, Championship, Cinderella 
• 2
nd 
Place, Junior II Latin Program 
• 3'd Place, VIII International Dance Festival, IDSF 
• 3'd Place, Governor Cup 
• 2nd Place, Sport Dance Competition, _ 
2004 
• I" Place in Cup Sport Dance, Junior Latin, ~rea 
• I" Place, Championship in Far East Region, IDSF 
• 2
nd 
Place, Dance Time 2004, IDSF 
• 2
nd 
Place, Cup Irkza, Junior 2 Program 
• 2
nd 
Place, Far East, IDSF 
• I" Place, Fire in Big City, Youth Latin Program 
• 2
nd 
Place, Dance Time 2004, IDSF 
2005 
• 2nd Place, 14th International Ballroom Festival 
• 1" Place, Open Dance Season, XXVIII Festival, IDSF 
• 3'd Place, Latin Program, Festival Competition, DanceSport 
• 3'd Place, Youth Standard Program, Sport Committee Chairman 
• 2nd Place, Youth Program Standard, Khabarovsk 
• 2nd Place, DanceSport Competition, Standard Program, Khabarovsk 
• 2nd Place, Closed Competition, Khabarovsk, IDSF 
• 2
nd 
Place, Governor Cup, 
• 2nd Place, Stars Primor'ya 2005, International Festival Ballroom DanceSport 
• 1" Place, VIII International Festival DanceSport, 
2006 
• I" Place, Cup Irkaza, Sport Committee Chairman 
• I" Place, Ballroom Sport Dance, IX Festival Mayor 
• I" Place, Ballroom Sport Dance, Latin, IX International Festival Dance Sport 
• 2nd Place, Winter Waltz, IDSF, Standard 
• 2'd Place, Winter Waltz, IDSF, Latin 
• 1" Place, Cup Tornado 2006, Latin Open Program 
2008 
• 2
nd 
Place, Zenith 2008, Dance Sport Studio 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted copies of certificates confirming that the beneficiary achieved the above-referenced 
results, as well as photographs of several trophies. The petitioner also provided copies of the beneficiary'S 
Russian Dance Sport Federation "Books for Classification," in which the beneficiary'S partners, dancer 
proficiency classification, and competition results are recorded. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to meet the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), noting that the petitioner only submitted awards that the beneficiary received on or before 
December 2006, when he was 16 years old. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary'S receipt of over 60 national 
and international awards dated between 1998 and 2008, and not only through 2006, as stated by the director. 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary competed in national and international competitions in both 2007 and 2008 
when he was 17 and 18 years of age. Specifically, counsel states: 
[The beneficiary] won 1" Place in the National Far East Region in 2007, won 2nd at the National 
Zenith 2008, 2nd Place at the Winter Waltz 2008, placed in the top 64 at the SI. Petersburg 
International Governors Cup 2008, and also placed in the 2008 International Victory Waltz. (See 
Exhibit 4) Additionally [the beneficiary's] ranking[s] were published on Danceportlnfo.net, the 
fastest growing, and most innovative international dancing website in the world (See Exhibit 5). 
The petitioner resubmits copies ofthe beneficiary'S award certificates, and now identifies whether each certificate 
was issued in national or international-level competition. The petitioner submits a photograph of a trophy for 1 st 
Place in the "Cup Far East Regions" awarded to the beneficiary in 2007. The AAO notes that a photograph of 
this trophy was previously submitted, with no identifYing information provided. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner's evidence fails to satisfY the 
plain language of this regulation. 
We note that the director did make a factual error in determining that the petitioner failed to submit evidence of an 
awarded dated after December 2006. The petitioner did submit a copy of the beneficiary's certificate for a 2"d 
place finish in "Cup Dance Sport Studio Zenith" held on May 18, 2008, prior to the adjudication of the petition. 
This was the only post-2006 award including among counsel's list of the beneficiary'S prizes and awards 
submitted at the time of filing. The above-referenced trophy and the beneficiary'S certificate at the "Winter 
Waltz" event were submitted previously, but no dates were identified on the awards themselves, and the petitioner 
did not claim that the beneficiary earned them in 2007 or 2008. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor [emphasis added]." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element 
of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary'S receipt of awards and prizes, it 
must also demonstrate that those awards and prizes are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. 
EAC 10055 50304 
Page 10 
In other words, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's awards and prizes are recognized nationally 
or internationally beyond the awarding entities. 
While the petitioner submitted certificates evidencing the beneficiary's receipt of these awards, the petitioner 
failed to submit documentation demonstrating that the awards received from these competitions are nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Without documentary evidence regarding the actual 
competitions themselves, such as the level of those who participated or evidence of the selection criteria, we 
cannot conclude based on the name of the competitions alone, that the competitions or tournaments are 
national or international, and therefore that the results are recognized beyond the awarding entities as national 
or international awards. 
We emphasize that a competition may be open to athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, 
but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally 
recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement 
associated with the beneficiary's awards. 
On appeal, the petitioner refers to DancesportInfo.net as a source of the beneficiary's rankings and results in 
competition. The petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary's results in the following competitions 
have been reported on Dancesportlnfo.net: 2005 Blackpool Junior Festival (five events), Russian Open 2004 
(four events), Victory Waltz 2008 (Youth Latin), and St. Petersburg Governors Cup 2008 (Youth Latin). The 
beneficiary's highest finish was "Top 22" at the Russian Open 2004 in the "Russian Junior II Latin" 
competition. None of the beneficiary's first, second, or third place finishes in competitions are reported on the 
website, which raises questions as to whether such competitions were in fact nationally or internationally 
recognized. 
In addition, we note that the beneficiary, to date, has participated only in age-restricted competition. While it 
appears that his proficiency level has progressed from "E" as a young child to his current level of "B" in 
Standard Ballroom and "A" in Latin Ballroom," it is unclear whether he has, in fact, achieved the highest 
level of competition. Even within a national-level competition, an award given to an athlete competing in age­
restricted events at an intermediate level would not necessarily be "nationally recognized." The record 
contains no published articles documenting the beneficiary's receipt of any awards, or other documentation 
that would corroborate the petitioner's claim that he has won nationally recognized prizes for excellence. 
Finally, and most importantly, the record contains no evidence that the beneficiary has received a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence as a dance instructor or coach. As the petitioner clearly seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as an instructor, the "area of extraordinary ability" for which classification is sought is 
teaching or coaching. There is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary seeks to work for the petitioner in the 
United States as a competitive dancer. Therefore, even if the petitioner established that the beneficiary'S awards 
for dancing include nationally-recognized awards for excellence, the preceding awards all resulted from the 
beneficiary's accomplishments as a competitive dancer, thus they cannot be considered evidence of his sustained 
national or international recognition as an instructor. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations require 
that the beneficiary seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See 
EAC 10 OSS S0304 
Page II 
section 101(a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § llOl(a)(IS)(O)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(i). See also Lee v. 
INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 914. There is no evidence showing that the beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in coaching or instruction. In light of the above, the 
petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thefieldfor 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 plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2) requires "[d]ocumentation ofthe alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which is 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 must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential 
condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given 
field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not 
constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; 
the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In support of the petitioner's contention that the beneficiary meets this criterion, counsel stated: 
The Russian DanceSport Federation, a full member of the International DanceSport 
Federation, issued [the beneficiary] a Sport Book at the age often years which lists many of 
his various dance competition accomplishments, as well as his Class A Rating. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit evidence to establish the beneficiary's membership 
in the IDSF, or evidence of the criteria for membership in the organization. The director noted that, based on 
the IDSF rules, membership requires only an application and an "annual membership fee." 
On appeal, counsel reiterates that the beneficiary is a member of the Russian DanceSport Federation and notes 
that this organization is a full member ofthe International DanceSport Federation. 
While the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner reflects the beneficiary's membership in the 
Russian DanceSport Federation, the documentary evidence fails to reflect that this organization requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence of the membership requirements for the Russian DanceSport Federation. 
The beneficiary joined the organization as a "Class E" dancer at the age of I 0, which suggests that membership 
is not, in fact, reserved for those dancers who have recorded outstanding achievements in the field. Absent 
evidence to the contrary, it appears that membership in the organization is held by competitive dancers of all 
ages and levels. 
EAC IO 055 50304 
Page 12 
Further, as indicated above, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the "alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for which 
classification is sought is dance instruction. The petitioner does not indicate that it requires the beneficiary's 
services as a dance competitor. As previously discussed, the statute and regulations require that the beneficiary 
seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section IOI(a)(l5)(O)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § I IOI(a)(l5)(O)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(i). See also Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 
914. The petitioner has provided evidence that the beneficiary is a member of any qualifying association for 
dance coaches or teachers, or provided evidence of any separate Russian DanceSport Federation membership 
requirements applicable to teachers or instructors. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
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 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), it must be 
primarily "about" the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media 
because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers3 
At the time of filing, counsel indicated that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on the fact that his "world 
rankings are published in the IDSF computerized rankings web site at dancesportinfo.net, and also on the 
Blackpool Dance Junior Dance Festival web site." 
The petitioner submitted two screenshots from DanceSportlnfo from http://dancesportinfo.net. The results 
reported are for the 2005 Blackpool Junior Dance Festival, where the beneficiary and his partner achieved the 
following results: Top 51, Junior Jive Competition; Top 49, Junior Latin Championships; Top 24, Junior Samba 
Competition; Top 102, Junior Standard Competition; and Top 97, Junior Viennese Waltz Competition. The same 
page also reports the following results from the Russian Open 2004: Top 22, Russian Junior II Latin; Top 26, 
Junior Rising Star Latin; Top 65, Junior II Standard; and Top 49, Junior Rising Star Standard. The second page 
of results, for the beneficiary and a more recent partner, indicates that they placed in the Top 91 in Youth Latin at 
Victory Waltz 2008, and Top 64 in the St. Petersburg Governors Cup 2008. All results are in the "Amateur" 
category. The petitioner submitted published information about the Blackpool Festival from the festival's 
website. 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
EAC 1005550304 
Page 13 
In response to the RFE, counsel further explained the scores and rankings as follows: 
The lDSF has a series of world ranking dance tournaments that are conducted with points for the 
lDSF World Ranking list. IDSF publishes their World Ranking results on dancesportinfo.net. 
Dancesportlnfo.net is the fastest growing, and the most innovative dancing international website 
in the world. This website is currently accessible in 18 languages and contains results data base 
of 8,242 competitions, and is visited with 148 countries. DancesportInfo.net has a daily page 
impression of 30 1288, with a peak of 526,690. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted does not meet this criterion. The director noted: "You state 
that the beneficiary is a member of Blackpool Dance, but the beneficiary'S name is not on the list submitted. 
There is no published material of the beneficiary'S work." 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
It was never stated that the beneficiary is a member of Black pool Dance. Blackpool Dance is not 
an association or club that dancers become members, but rather a Dance Festival in which 
dancers from all over the world compete. The Blackpool Dance Festival began in 1920, and 
continues today as the most famous and prestigious dance event in the World. The 2009 
Blackpool Festival had dancers from 60 countries and a total of 1,808 couples who competed at 
this event. 
Counsel refers to the competition results published on dancesportinfo.net and emphasizes that the beneficiary's 
name "was most certainly on the list of dancers competing at that dance event." Counsel contends that such 
evidence represents "evidence of published material in a major media relating to [the beneficiary's] work in the 
field of dance sport." 
The AAO notes that the on-line competition results published by dancesportinfo.net, cannot be considered to be 
published materials "about the beneficiary." The evidence does little more than confirm the beneficiary'S 
participation in the Russian Open 2004, the 2005 Blackpool Junior Dance Festival, and the two additional events 
in 2008, where the beneficiary failed to receive any prizes or awards. We are not persuaded that published 
competition results that merely indicate the beneficiary's scores and finishes, along with those of other 
competitors, are sufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
While counsel emphasizes that the website has a daily page impression of over 300,000 viewers, it is reasonable 
to believe that the beneficiary's specific results would only be read by those who specifically search for either his 
name or for the results of the specific competitions in which he participated. The regulation clearly requires a 
written article about the beneficiary, in light of the petitioner's burden to submit the title, date, and author of such 
published material. 
Furthermore, the evidence reflects the beneficiary'S accomplishments as a dancer rather than his accomplishments 
as a dance instructor. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires published material "about the 
EAC 10055 50304 
Page 14 
alien ... relating to the field for which classification is sought." We cannot conclude that the preceding 
material relates primarily to the beneficiary's work as a dance instructor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the initial required evidence necessary to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the eight 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
C Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) provides that 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 receipt of a major internationally recognized 
award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), or by submitting evidence to satisfy at least three of the eight 
forms of documentation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B). We further acknowledge that the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) provides "[i]fthe criteria in paragraph (0)(3)(iii) of the section do not readily apply 
to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." It is clear from the use of the word "must" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) that the rule, 
not the exception, is that the petitioner is required to submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory 
criteria. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the 
beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l) through (8). 
The petitioner claimed eligibility under the "comparable evidence" regulation in its response to the director's 
request for evidence, in addition to claiming eligibility under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l), 
(2) and (3). Counsel emphasizes on appeal that the director failed to consider the petitioner's claim that it has 
comparable evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) 
Nonetheless, the regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there 
is no indication that eligibility for 0-1 classification in the beneficiary's occupation as a dance instructor 
cannot be established by submitting documentation relevant to at least three of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( 0)(3)(iii)(B). In fact, as indicated in this decision, counsel mentions evidence in his brief that 
specifically addresses three of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). An inability to meet a 
criterion, however, is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does not apply to the beneficiary's occupation. 
Moreover, although the petitioner failed to claim any additional criteria, we find it reasonable to believe that a 
dance instructor could, for example, earn a high salary or be employed in a critical or essential capacity for an 
organization with a distinguished reputation. 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 15 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence of three ofthese criteria, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(C) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. 
We note that the "comparable evidence" of the beneficiary's eligibility consists of testimonial letters, and the 
above referenced evidence of the beneficiary's participation in the Blackpool Junior Dance Festival. Although the 
petitioner does not claim that this evidence is directly related to any of the eligibility criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), we will nevertheless consider the evidence in our final merits determination below. 
D. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that considers all 
of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(ii) 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." See section 101(a)(I5)(O)(i) of 
the Act, 8 u.s.c. § llOl(a)(15)(O)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii); see also Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at 
*3. 
The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), depends on the 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(ii). 
In this case, the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in 
the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to determine the 
beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 10 I (a)(1 5)(O)(i) of the Act. Upon review, the AAO finds that the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of the sport of competitive ballroom 
dancing as an athlete. Furthermore, the petitioner does not seek to hire the beneficiary as a competitive 
dancer, but rather as a dance instructor. The petitioner has submitted minimal evidence of the beneficiary's 
experience as a dance instructor, and no documentation of his achievements as an instructor. As discussed 
above, in a case where an alien has achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and has 
sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching 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 
coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. A coach or instructor who has an established successful 
history of training athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim. The record 
contains only passing references to the beneficiary's teaching experience, and no evidence that he has 
coached any top dancers. The beneficiary's documented accomplishments as a dance instructor, therefore, fall 
far short of establishing that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
EAC 10 OSS S0304 
Page 16 
endeavor" and that he "has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the 
field of expertise." 
While the beneficiary has undoubtedly competed with success at the juvenile, junior and youth levels of 
dancesport competitions between 1998 and 2008, the beneficiary's achievements must be compared to all 
athletes and not only to other children and youth competing in the sport. Furthermore, we note that the record 
simply does not contain documentation to support the petitioner's claims that the beneficiary's first, second 
and third place finishes in dance events are nationally or internationally-recognized awards or prizes for 
excellence in the beneficiary's field, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(1). With the exception of 
the Blackpool Dance Festival, the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to corroborate its claims that the 
beneficiary has participated in, much less won, "major" awards in the field of competitive ballroom dance. 
Upon review, it appears that the beneficiary's greatest achievement as a dancer was finishing in 49"' place in 
the Junior Latin Championships at the 200S Blackpool Junior Dance Festival at the age of 14 years old. 
While we acknowledge that Blackpool is a prestigious dance competition, and one that would quality as 
"internationally recognized" under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l), the AAO cannot conclude that a 49th 
place finish is an "award or prize for excellence," and the petitioner provides no rationale for considering the 
beneficiary's competition results under any other criterion. The AAO would expect an athlete at the very top 
of his or her sport to be competing in such high-profile events at the highest competitive level of the sport 
over a period of time. The regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate "sustained" acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0)(3)(iii). A 49th place finish at a prestigious junior competition is insufficient to establish the 
beneficiary'S placement in the top echelon of athletes in the sport. In weighing the merits of the beneficiary's 
achievements as a dancer, the AAO must also take into account that the beneficiary has enjoyed success at 
junior and pre-professional levels of the sport. 
Further, there is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary intends to continue competing as a ballroom 
dancer in the United States under the terms of employment offered in the instant petition. As discussed 
previously, the statute and regulations require the beneficiary'S national or international acclaim to be sustained 
and that he seeks to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability in the United States. See section 
101(a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(lS)(O)(i) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(i) and (iii). The 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received any nationally or internationally recognized 
awards as a dance instructor. 
Moreover, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence in the form of published materials about the beneficiary 
that demonstrates that the beneficiary has sustained acclaim as a gymnastics coach. See section IOI(a)(IS)(O)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101 (a)(lS)(O)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( 0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). The only "published materials" 
submitted for review were dance competition results published on dancesportinfo.net, rather than articles 
about the beneficiary. While the beneficiary's membership in the Russian Dance Sport Federation is noted, 
the petitioner also failed to submit evidentiary 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, and thus did not satisty the plain language of the 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 17 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(2). Based on the evidence submitted, it appears that competitive 
dancers of any age and proficiency level are eligible for membership in the Russian DanceSport Federation. 
Beyond the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), the petitioner submitted several letters of 
support from the beneficiary's peers and former instructors. While reference letters can provide useful 
information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters do not 
equate to extensive evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and 
regulations, and will not be considered "comparable evidence" of same. The nonexistence of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought requires "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). Primary evidence of achievements and 
recognition is offar greater probative value than opinion statements from individuals selected by the petitioner or 
the beneficiary. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
with his organization and states: 
[The beneficiary 1 was in class A Latin dance program and class B Standard program March 
18, 2008 until December 29, 2008. During this time, [the beneficiary 1 was a member of 
••••••••••••••• In this time he proved that he was a very diligent 
and did everything his instructors asked of him. This time he competed in regional and 
international competitions. Competitions: "Zenith 2008" May 18, 2008, "Victory Waltz" 
(international compo in Moscow) May 10, 2008, 
comp.) April 26, 2008. 
, and a certified 
certifies that the beneficiary "worked at a professional dance company "Fantasia" from September I, 1997 
until June 1,2007." He further states: 
His level is A class in the Latin program and B class in the Standard program. During this 
period, [the beneficiary 1 studied under some of Russia's most notable Dance Instructors Yu. 
[The beneficiary 1 has competed at the 
~ld""U.. [The beneficiary 1 also competed Russia 
Open (Russian National Champion) where 22nd in Latin and 69th in Standard. [The 
beneficiary 1 performed in a Dance Exhibition in Enniigata Japan. [The beneficiary 1 worked 
with our young dancers and demonstrated his professionalism. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Instructor of the Region Youth 
Organization in SI. Petersburg. ,odicates that the beneficiary danced in his studio from March 
2008 until December 2008. He further states: 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page IS 
[The beneficiary] competed in "Zenith 200S" May IS, 200S, placing 2nd out of our 24 
couples, "Victory Waltz" (international competition in Moscow) May 10, 200S, placing 91" 
out of 156 couples, April 26, 
200S, placing 64th out of lIS couples. [The beneficiary] was my student and was extremely 
diligent, hardworking and is a young man of exceptionally fine character and honor. His 
dancing shows emotion, perfect technique, and exceptional elegance, which he taught to his 
own 10 students in my studio. 
[The beneficiary] danced in the 
March 2S through April I, 
competition in the world, second only to the World Championship in which two couples from 
each country compete annually. [The beneficiary] and his partner placed 102 in standard 5 
dance and 49 in Latin 5 dance. Because [the beneficiary] ranked so highly in Blackpool, my 
studio benefited by adding prestige and marketable talent to our studio reputation. 
[The beneficiary's] ability to teach youth in professional dance is of major importance in my 
opinion. I conclude that [the beneficiary] is gentle but firm in teaching technique as to 
emphasize correctness in this area during competitions. [The beneficiary's ] level of skill at so 
young an age directly benefits young students as to encourage and persuade them to continue 
to dance as he is an excellent role model. 
also provided a letter in 
support of the petition. He states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] for a few months and have had the pleasure of watching him 
dance at various dances locally. He is an extremely accomplished dancer of a very high 
caliber. He is well liked in the Huntsville dance community and has a good moral character. 
It would benefit the Huntsville community tremendously to have a dance instructor with [the 
beneficiary's] experience and accomplishments. 
. also indicates that the beneficiary "has a degree in ballroom dancing, a level that is not 
offered in any institution in America." 
The petitioner submitted a letter from ••••••• who indicates that he is a governing council 
member 
[The beneficiary] has demonstrated his extraordinary ability to dance at the highest level by 
placing 42nd at 22nd at the_ 
Open. Both competitions are listed as the Top competitions world wide 
(http://dancesportinfo.net/articles/669S.aspx). [The beneficiary] has training under some of 
the top coaches in the world. Currently today, in both up 
EAC 10055 50304 
Page 19 
25% of the top 100 (http://dancesportinfo.net). Of the 200 spots (l00 in Latin and 100 in 
Ballroom only two Americans ... are present, and both happen to be of Russian descent. 
Finally, on appeal, the petitioner has supplemented the record with a letter from Olga Kormanovskaya, who 
states that she has known the beneficiary since the summer of 2009 "in the capacity of a fellow Russian 
professional dancer, performer, and instructor. 
Because formal dance in Russia is so highly competitive, only a handful of dancers who are 
willing to train as an Olympian reach the level of extreme talent that [the beneficiary] 
possesses. As a ballroom dance performer and judge who travels extensively throughout the 
southeast U.S. I have the opportunity to watch, judge and evaluate hundreds, if not thousands 
of competitive dancers, and rarely have I been so impressed with a dancer who encompasses 
every single desirable trait of a professional dancer - natural talent, self-discipline, focus and 
charisma. 
Besides competing and winning countless national and international Latin competltlOns 
through 2008, [the beneficiary] competed in Blackpool, England in 2005, and placed a 
remarkable 49th among almost 300 in the Latin category. I stress what an accomplishment 
this is in the world of dance, since the annual Blackpool Festival is one of the two foremost 
international ballroom dance competitions in the world. [The beneficiary] studied under two 
of the most ished dance performers (now instructors) in •••••••••••• 
instilled not only a great love of dance, but perfect technique. Again, 
[the beneficiary's] accomplishments in Latin dance are significant and especially noteworthy 
considering his young age. 
by stating that the beneficiary'S "experience and talent as a dancer and 
instructor will benefit and enhance any studio and student performance." 
While we acknowledge that the above-referenced individuals support the beneficiary's petition, the AAO 
cannot exempt the petitioner from submitting evidence that satisfies the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or (B). The evidence of record simply does not support a conclusion that the beneficiary is 
a "nationally or internationally recognized" dance instructor, or that he reached the level of a nationally­
recognized competitive dancer. 
While some of the beneficiary's peers have positively, but vaguely, endorsed the beneficiary'S skill as an 
instructor in dance, such endorsements cannot be accepted in lieu of direct evidence of the beneficiary's 
sustained national or international acclaim as a dance instructor coach in accordance with the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). The 0-1 classification is not intended for persons who are merely 
well-qualified in their field. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
EAC 10 055 50304 
Page 20 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrnr. 1988). USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 
See id. at 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how 
they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of achievements and recognition that one would expect of a dance 
instructor who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
We cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of the 
beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner seeks to rely primarily on vague 
testimonial letters rather than on any primary evidence of the beneficiary's achievements as a dance instructor. 
We are not persuaded that evidence with the numerous deficiencies noted equates to "extensive 
documentation" demonstrative of an individual with sustained national or international acclaim. The truth is 
to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376 citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r. 1989). 
The petitioner seeks to qualifY the beneficiary for a highly restrictive Vlsa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields. The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to 
meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, 
the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(ii). 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. The extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Congo Rec. S 1824 7 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 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 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed