dismissed O-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Department of Homeland Securiiv
ilS. ( iuzenshipandlumiiermionsmim
AdminiMrane Appeak()llice (AM)ì
20 MassachuwsAve.. NK Ms 3Nn
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: DEC 0 5 2012 Office: VERMONT SERVICECENTER FILE
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorkerPursuantto Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 110l(a)(15)(O)(i)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemustbe madeto that office.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290D, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thank you,
Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative AppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,VermontServiceCenter,deniedthe nonimmigrantvisa petition. The
matteris now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismissthe
appeal.
The petitionerfiled this petition seekingto classify thebeneficiaryasan0-1 nonimmigrantpursuant
to section 101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C.
Il01(a)(15)(O)(i), as an alien of extraordinaryability in athletics.The petitioner,a dancestudio,
seeksto employ thebeneficiaryasa DanceInstructorfor aperiodof threeyears.
Thedirectordeniedthe petition,findingthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiaryhas
achievedsustainednational or internationalacclaim in his field. The director determinedthat the
petitionerestablishedonlyoneof theeightevidentiarycriteriasetforthat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
The petitionersubsequentlyfiled an appeal.The directordeclinedto treatthe appealasa motion and
forwardedthe appealto the AAO for review.On appeal,counselfor the petitionerassertsthatthe
director failed to considerrelevantevidencethat establishesthat the beneficiary has achievedthe
requisitelevelof distinctionin his field. Counselsubmitsa detailedbrief in supportof theappeal.The
applicanthassubmittedadditionalevidenceon appeal.
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO will upholdthedirector'sdecisionanddismisstheappeal.
L The Law
Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),providesfor theclassificationof a
qualifiedalienwho:
hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts.education,business,or athleticswhich
hasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor internationalacclaim . . . andwhose
achievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield throughextensivedocumentation.and
seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in theareaof extraordinaryability .
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii)defines,in pertinentpart:
Extraordinaryability in thefield of science,education,business,or athleticsmeansa
level of expertiseindicating that the personis oneof the small percentagewho have
arisento thevery top of thefield of endeavor.
Theextraordinaryability provisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighly restrictivefor
aliensin the fields of business,education,athletics,and the sciences.See59 FR 41818,41819
(August 15, 1994); 137Cong. Rec.S18242,18247(daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991)(comparingand
discussingthelower standardfor thearts).
In apolicy memorandum,thelegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)emphasized:
Page3
It must be rememberedthat the standardsfor O-1 aliens in the fields of business,
education,athletics,and the sciencesare extremely high. The O-1 classificationshould
be reservedonly for thosealiens who have reachedthe very top of their occupationor
profession. The O-1 classification is substantiallyhigher than the old H-lB prominent
standard. Officers involved in the adjudication of these petitions should not "water
down" theclassificationby approvingO-1 petitionsfor prominentaliens.
Memorandum, Lawrence Weinig, Acting Asst. Comm'r., INS, "Policy Guidelines for the
Adjudication of O andP Petitions"(June25 1992).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)states,in pertinentpart:
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinaryability in thefields of science,
education,business.or athletics. An alien of extraordinaryability in the fields of
science, education, business,or athletics must demonstratesustainednational or
internationalacclaim and recognition for achievementsin the field of expertiseby
providingevidenceof:
(A) Receiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize:or
(B) At leastthreeof thefollowingformsof documentation:
(1) Documentationof the alien's receipt of nationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor:
(2) Documentationof the alien'smembershipin associationsin the field for
which classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof
their members,asjudged by recognizedor internationalexpertsin their
disciplinesor fields;
(3) Publishedmaterialin professionalor major tradepublicationsor major
mediaaboutthealien,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for which
classificationis sought,which shallincludethe title, date,andauthorof
suchpublishedmaterial,andanynecessarytranslation:
(4) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipationon a panel,or individuallyasajudge
of the work of othersin thesameor in an allied field of specializationto
thatforwhichclassificationissought;
(5) Evidenceof the alien'soriginal scientific,scholarly,or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(6) Evidenceof the alien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in
professionaljournals,or othermajormedia;
Page4
(7) Evidencethatthealienhasbeenemployedin acritical or essentialcapacity
for organizationsandestablishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation;
(8) Evidencethatalienhaseithercommandedahighsalaryor will commanda
high salaryor other remunerationfor services,evidencedby contractsor
otherreliableevidence.
(C) If thecriteriain paragraph(o)(3)(iii) of thissectiondo not readilyapplyto the
beneficiary'soccupation,the petitioner may submit comparableevidencein
orderto establishthebeneficiary'seligibility.
Additionally,theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii)provides:
Theevidencesubmittedwith anO petitionshallconfonnto thefollowing:
(A) Affidavits,contracts,awards,andsimilardocumentationmustreflectthenatureof
the alien's achievementand be executedby an officer or responsibleperson
employedby theinstitution,firm, establishment,or orgamzationwherethework
wasperformed.
(B) Affidavitswrittenbypresentor formeremployersor recognizedexpertscertifying
to the recognitionandextraordinaryability . . . shall specificallydescribethe
alien'srecognitionand ability or achievementin factual termsand set forth the
expertiseof the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such
information.
Thedecisionof U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)in a particularcaseis dependent
uponthequalityof theevidencesubmittedby thepetitioner,notjust thequantityof theevidence.The
merefact thatthepetitionerhassubmittedevidencerelatingto threeof thecriteriaasrequiredby the
regulationdoesnot necessarilyestablishthatthealienis eligible for O-1 classification.59 FedReg
at41820.
In determiningthebeneficiary'seligibility underthesecriteria,theAAO will tollow a two-partapproach
setforth in a 2010decisionissuedby the U.S.Courtof Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit.Kazarianv.
USCIS,2010 WL 725317(9'" Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulationsgoverningthis
nommmigrantclassification,the regulationsreviewedby the Kazarian court requirethe petitioner10
submit evidencepertammgto at least three out of ten alternativecriteria in order to establisha
beneficiary'seligibilityasanalienwithextraordinaryability. Cf' 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improper understandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did),"andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence."theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof three typesof evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at I122 (citing to
SC.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)). The court alsoexplainedthe "final meritsdetermination"as the corollaryto
thisprocedure:
Page5
If a petitioner has submittedthe requisiteevidence,USCIS determineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha "level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individual is oneof
that small percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the[ir} field of endeavor,"8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"that thealien hassustainednationalor internationalacclaim
and that his or her achievementshavebeen recognizedin the field of expertise."8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Onlyalienswhoseachievementshavegarnered"sustainednational
or internationalacclaim"are eligible for an "extraordinaryability" visa. 8 U.S.C.§
1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at*3.
Thus,Ka:arian setsfortha two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthen.if qualifying
underat leastthreecriteria,consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.The AAO finds
theKazarian court'stwo partapproachto be appropriatefor evaluatingthe regulatorycriteriasetforth
for 0-1 nonimmigrantpetitionsfor aliensof extraordinaryability at8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii),(iv) and
(v). Therefore,in reviewing Service Center decisions,the AAO will apply the test set forth in
Kazarian. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. United States,229 F. Supp.2d 1025, 1043(E.D. Cal.
2001),af}'d,345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir. 2004)
(noting thattheAAO conductsappellatereview on adenovobasis).
In the presentmatter, although the petitioner has submittedevidencepertaining to severalof the
evidentiarycriteria, for the reasonsdiscussedbelow the AAO finds the petitionerhasnot established
thatthebeneficiaryhasrisento theverytop of his field or thathehasachievedsustainednationalor
internationalacclaim.8 C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(ii)and(iii).
IL Discussion
A. Intentto Continueto Workin theAreaof ExtraordinaryAbility in theUnitedStates
This petition, filed on March 27, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with
extraordinaryability as a danceinstructor. The statuteand regulationsrequire that the beneficiary
seek to continuework in his areaof extraordinaryability in the United States. See section
101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i);8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(i). In its April 1,
2012 letter submittedat filing, the petitioning dancestudio indicatesit seeksto employ ihe
beneficiary"to teachthe internationalstyle of ballroom dancing" and "give classesto all levels of
studentsincluding beginners,intermediate,advancedstudentsaswell ascoachdanceteachers." In
addition, the petitioner statesthe beneticiary"will preparestudentsfor competitions," since"some
of [the petitioner's] studentshave alreadybegunto competein annualdomesticand international
dancecompetitions. . .[The beneficiary] will represent[the petitioner] in nationaland international
ballroom competitionsand he is plannedto participatein National and Internationalcompetitions.
However, the petitioner has not indicated that the beneficiarywill continue his careeras a
competitivedancerin the United Statesunderthe termsandconditionsof employmentwith the
petitioningstudio. Thus,in thiscasethereis noevidenceestablishingthatthebeneficiaryintendsto
continueworking in the United Statesasa competitivedancer.
Page6
The beneficiary is a 30-year-old ballroom dancerwho participatedm competitive ballroom dance
competitions.or "DanceSport"competitions,from 1995until 2010,beforecomingto the United
Statesasa visitor in April 2011. Documentssubmittedby thepetitioneron appealalso indicatethat
the beneficiary worked as a dance instructor of both adolescentsand adults in the city of
Russiafrom September1998through March 2011. The petitioner'scontractwith the
beneficiary, basedon the evidence of record, consists of an "Employment Agreement" and a
"ProfessionalInstructorAgreement"underwhich the petitioner agreesto train the beneficiary in its
teachingandinstructionalmethodsandthe beneficiaryagreesto completesuchtraining within three
months,afterwhich time hewill be assignedstudentsto teach. Thereis nothingin eitheragreement
to suggestthat the beneficiarywould be performing on national or worldwide tours,competingin
DanceSportcompetitions,or rehearsingfor suchevents,asa conditionof hisemploymentwith the
petitioner. The petitioner has not provided evidence that instructors employed by its studio are
simultaneously working for the petitioner as professional dancers. Therefore, the AAO must
concludethatthebeneficiarywill beemployedprimarilyasadanceinstructor.
While a professionaldanceranda danceinstructorcertainly shareknowledgeof dance,the two rely
on very different setsof basicskills. Thus,danceperformanceanddanceinstructionare not the
sameareaof expertise,This interpretation,asappliedto competitiveathletesandathleticcoaches,
hasbeenupheldin FederalCourt. In Leev. LN.S.,237F. Supp.2d 914(N.D. Ill. 2002),thecourt
stated:
It is reasonableto interpretcontinuing to work in one's"areaof extraordinaryability"
as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not
necessarilyin any professionin thatfield. For example,Lee'sextraordinaryability as
a baseballplayerdoesnot imply thathealsohasextraordinaryability in all positions
or professionsin thebaseballindustrysuchasamanager,umpireor coach.
Id. at 918. The court noteda consistenthistory in this area. This office hasrecognizedthat there
exists a nexus betweenperforming as a competitive athlete and teachingas an athletic coach.To
assumethat every extraordinaryathlete'sareaof expertiseincludesteachingor instruction, however,
wouldbetoo speculative.To resolvethis issue,thefollowing balanceis appropriate.In a casewhere
an alien hasclearly achieveddistinctionasan athleteandhassustainedthat acclaimin the field of
mstruction,we canconsiderthe totality of theevidenceasestablishingan overall patternof sustained
acclaimandextraordinaryability suchthatwe canconcludethatinstructionis within thebeneficiary's
areaof expertise. Specifically, in sucha casewe will considerthe level at which the alien actsasan
instructor. An instructorwho hasanestablishedsuccessfulhistory of instructingdancerswho compete
regularly or perform at a high level hasa credible claim; an instructorof novicesdoesnot. Thus,we
will examine whether the petitioner has demonstratedthe beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a
danceror as a dance instructor. If the petitioner has demonstratedhis extraordinary ability as an
athlete,we will considerthe level at which he hassuccessfullyperformedas an instructor,since
ultimatelyhemustsatisfythestatutoryrequirementat section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Act aswell as
theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or (B) throughhisachievementsasa danceinstructor.
As discussedbelow, the beneficiary in this matterappearsto haveonly limited experienceasa dance
instructor,andhasnodocumentedachievementsasaninstructor.
Page7
B. TheBeneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria
At the outset,it must be notedthat Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinary
ability by requiringthroughthestatutethatthepetitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim"andpresent"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection
101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Act. If the petitionerestablishesthroughthe submissionof documentary
evidencethat the beneficiary has receiveda major, internationally recognizedaward pursuantto
8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A),thenit will meetits burdenof proof with respectto thebeneficiary's
eligibility for O-1 classification. The regulationscite to the Nobel Prize as an exampleof a major
award.Id. Given thatthe regulationsspecifically cite to the Nobel Prizeasanexampleof a one-time
achievement,examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may
includethe PulitzerPrize,theAcademyAward, and(most relevantfor athletics)anOlympic Medal.
The director determinedthat the petitioner submitted no evidenceto meet this criterion, and the
petitionerhasraisedno objectionto this finding.
As thereis no evidencethatthebeneficiaryhasreceiveda major,internationallyrecognizedaward,
thepetitionermustestablishthebeneficiary'seligibility underat leastthreeof theeightcriteriaset
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the
following criteria:
Documentationof the alien's receiptof nationally or internationallyrecognizedprizes
or awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor
In aletterdatedApril 1,2012,thepetitionerprovidedalist of thebeneficiary's"majorawardsor prizes'
receivedduring the years 1995, 1997through2000, 2002 through2006, 2010 and 2011. The
beneficiary'sfirst,secondandthirdplacefinishesarelistedbelow:
1995
• 2"dPlace
• 3 Place
1997
• 1" Place.
1998
• 1 Place,
• 3 Place
The beneficiary'sfinishes lesserthan third place have beenomitted from the list provided by the petitioner, as the
petitionerhasnot establishedthatplacing in thesepositionsresultedin the receiptof an "awardor prize for excellencein
the field" as required by the plain languageof the regulations.
Page8
2000
• 3 Place,
2002
2003
2004
2005
• 1 Place
• 1 Place
2006
• 1"Place
2010
• 1 Plac(
• 1"Placc
Page9
• 3'dPlace,
• 1" Place,
• 3dPlace,
• 1" Place.
• I"Place.
2011
• 1"Place
• 3'dPlacc
The petitioner submittedcopies of certificateswith the necessarytranslationsconfirming that the
beneficiaryachievedthe above-referencedresults. The petitioneralsoprovidedcopiesof what the
petitioner calls the beneficiary's "official dancer book", the beneficiary's Russian Dance Sport
Federationbook in which thebeneficiary'spartners,dancerproficiencyclassification,andcompetition
resultsarerecorded.
Thedirectordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedwasinsufficientto meetthecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),findingthatthepetitionerfailedto demonstratethatthoseawardsandprizes
arenationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellence.
Onappeal,counselassertsthatthepetitionersubmittedevidenceof thebeneficiary'sreceiptof several
nationalandinternationalawards
Upon review,the AAO concurswith the director'sdeterminationthat the petitioner'sevidencefails to
satisfytheplain languageof thiscriterion.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1) requires1dlocumentation
of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for
excellencein the field of endeavor[emphasisadded]." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burdento
establisheligibility for everyelementof thiscriterion. Not only mustthepetitionerdemonstratethe
beneficiary's receipt of awards and prizes, it must also demonstrate that those awards and prizes are
nationally or internationally recognizedfor excellence. In otherwords, the petitioner mustestablish
that the beneficiary's awards and prizes are recognizednationally or internationally beyond the
awarding entities.
While the petitioner submittedcertificatesevidencingthe beneficiary's receiptof theseawards,the
petitioner failed to submit documentationdemonstrating that the awards received from these
competitionsarenationally or internationally recognizedprizesor awards. The AAO notesthat the
awardsthatthebeneficiarywon in adultcompetition,from 2002through2010,wereall awardedin
competitions in Without documentaryevidence regarding the actual
competitionsthemselves,suc1ast3e evel of thosewho participatedor evidenceof the selection
cnteria,we cannotconclude,basedon thenameof thecompetitionsalone,thatthecompetitionsor
tournamentsare national or international,and thereforethat the resultsare recognizedbeyond the
awardingentitiesasnationalor internationalawards.
Page10
We emphasizethat a competition may be open to athletesfrom throughouta particular country or
countries,but this factor alone is not adequateto establishthat an award or prize is "nationally or
internationallyrecognized." The burdenis on the petitioner to demonstratethe level of recognition
andachievementassociatedwith thebeneficiary'sawards.
Further,and mostimportantly,the recordcontainsno evidencethat the beneficiaryhasreceiveda
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardfor excellenceasa danceinstructoror coach. As the
petitionerclearlyseekstoemploythebeneficiaryasaninstructor,the"areaof extraordinaryability" for
which classificationis soughtis teachingor coaching. Thereis no evidenceindicatingthat the
beneficiaryseeksto work for the petitionerin the United Statesasa competitivedancer. Therefore,
evenif thepetitionerestablishedthatthebeneficiary'sawardsfor dancingincludenationally-recognized
awardsfor excellence,theprecedingawardsall resultedfrom thebeneficiary'saccomplishmentsasa
competitivedancer,thustheycannotbeconsideredevidenceof hissustainednationalor international
recognitionas an instructor. As previouslydiscussed,the statute and regulations require that the
beneficiaryseekto continuework in his areaof extraordinaryability in the United States.See
section10I(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i);8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(i).Seealso
Leen LN.S..237F.Supp.2dat9I4.
There is no evidenceshowing that the beneficiaryhas receivednationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein coachingor instruction. In its letterdatedApril 1,
2012,the petitionerprovideda list of the beneficiarv'scoachingcertificatesobtainedfrom September
24,2010throughDecember1,2011in RussiaandtheUnitedStates.Thepetitionerhasnotexplained
howanyof thesecoachingcertificatescouldbeconsiderednationallyor internationallyrecognized
awardsor prizes. In addition, thepetitioner hassubmittedfour lettersregardinghis excellenceasa
danceinstructorfrom regionalauthoritiesin Oneundatedletteris from
the deputymayorof hankingthe beneficiaryfor his work at a dancestudio in
that region. The secondletter, from memberof the boardof education
administrationin thanks the beneficiary for his assistancein a regional dance
conferencein 2010. The third letter,from a memberof themunicipalauthorityin
recommendsthat beneficiaryas a "capableand talentedteacherof ballroom dancing
baseduponhis work from 2008to 2010choreographinga programcommemoratingthe city. The
fourthletter,from thegovernorof expresseshis admirationfor thebeneficiaryhaving
coachedajunior dancecoupleto a4"' placefinish in thecity's 201 omp$tition.
In addition,in its letterdatedApril 1,2012,thepetitionerindicatesthatfrom 1998until hisarrivalto
theUnitedStatesin June2011thebeneficiarv"trainedstudents<»
prestigiousdancesportschools andlists severalstudentsof thebeneficiaryandawardssomeof them
have won. Employmentverification letters from severalof the beneficiary's past employersalso
providethis information.As statedabove,in a casewhereanalienhasachievedrecentnationalor
internationalacclaimas an athleteand hassustainedthat acclaimin the field of coachingat a
nationallevel, we can considerthe totality of the evidenceas establishingan overall patternof
sustainedacclaimandextraordinaryability suchthat we canconcludethat coachingis within the
petitioner'sareaof expertise.UponreviewtheAAO finds insufficientevidenceto establishthatthe
beneficiaryhaswon nationalor internationallyrecognizedawardsor prizesas a ballroomdance
coachor that his studentshavewon nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awards.The
evidence shows that the beneficiary has been regionally recognized as being an outstanding
Page11
ballroom dancerand instructor, but there is no evidenceof any national or internationalprize or
awardissuedto him basedon his accomplishmentsasan instructoror teacher.
Further,the AAO finds that additional documentaryevidenceis neededto establishthat the
beneficiary's students have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for
excellencein the field. While the petitionerhasprovidedthe namesof the beneficiary'sclaimed
award-winningstudents,the petitionerhasnot provideddocumentaryevidenceof their awards. The
petitioner hasnot adequatelyexplainedwhy documentaryevidenceof suchawardsis not available.
In addition, the third-party statementsof witnessesregardingsuch awardsare insufficient to meet
this criterion. Going on record without supporting documentaryevidence is not sufficient for
purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici, 22 l&N Dec.at 16i
Finally, the evidenceindicatesthat the beneficiaryhasonly beenteachingdancerscompetingat the
junior level. Even if the petitioner had submitted copies of the awards, an international award
receivedby a studentcompetingat thejunior level would not carry the sameevidentiaryweight as
an international award received by a competitor at the adult, professional level, without some
additionalexplanationasto how the sportis governedat thejunior level. The petitionerhasnot
establishedthatthebeneficiarymeetsthis criterion.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedtheinitial requiredevidencenecessaryto meet
theplainlanguagerequirementsof at8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l).
Documentation of the alien's membershipm associations in the field for which
classification is sought,which require outstandingachievementsof their membersas
judged by recognizednational or international expertsin their disciplinesor fields.
In order to demonstratethat membershipin an associationmeetsthis criterion the petitioner must
showthat theassociationrequiresoutstandingachievementasanessentialcondition for admissionto
membership. Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a given field, minimum
educationor experience,recommendationsby colleaguesor currentmembers,or paymentof dues,
do not satisfy this criterion as such requirementsdo not constitute outstanding achievements.
Further,theoverallprestigeof a givenassociationis notdeterminative;theissuehereis membership
requirementsratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.
The directordetermined,without furtherdiscussion,that the petitionersubmittedevidencewhich
satisfiesthe criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(a)(3)(iii)(B)(2). The AAO disagreeswith the
director'sdetermination.
In supportof its contentionthat thebeneficiarymeetsthis criterion, thepetitionerfirst hassubmitteda
certificatestatingthat the applicantis a certified memberof the DanceSport Associationof the
However,the petitionerhasfailed to submitdocumentaryevidencethat this
orgamzationrequiresoutstandingachievementsof its members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor
internationalexperts. Thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidenceof the membershiprequirementsfor
the Dance Sport Association of the showingthat membershipis reservedfor
thosedancerswhohaverecordedoutstandingachievementsin thefield.
Page12
Secondly,the petitioner has submitted a certificate which indicates that the applicant - . . . is
included in the sportsmendatabaseof Dance Sport Federationof Russia . . .'' However, this
certificatedoesnot establishthat the applicant's statusasa "sportsman"is equivalentto his beinga
memberof theDanceSportFederationof Russia.
Thirdì ', the etitionerhassubmittedtwo lettersfrom presidentof the
statingthat the applicantis a memberof the RussianProfessionalDanceUnion
(RDU),andthattheRDU is a memberof the Uponreview,thepetitionerhasnot submitted
sufficientevidenceof thebeneficiary'smembershipin the RDU. Thepetitionerhasnot adequately
explainedwhy documentaryevidenceof suchmembershipis not available.In addition,Stanislav
Popov's third-party statementthat the beneficiary is a memberof the RDU is insufficient to meet
this criterion. Going on record without supporting documentaryevidence is not sufficient for
purposesof meetingthe burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Srgici, 22 1&N Dec. 158.
165(Comm. 1998)(citing Matter of 7reasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg.Comm.
1972)).
Fourthly, the petitioner hassubmitteddocumentationfrom the National DanceCouncil of America.
indicating that thepetitioner is a memberof thecouncil, andindicating that thebeneficiaryhasbeen
conferred the status of a Certified Dance Teacher by the petitioner. These documentsdo not
establishthat thebeneficiaryis a memberof theNational DanceCouncil.
Fifthly, the petitioner hasprovidedevidencethat on September12,2010 the beneficiarywas issueda
"Republic categorycoachand first-degreejudge" licenseby the RussianDanceSport Federation
(RDSF). While it appearsthat issuanceof the licensewould entail membershipin the RDSF.the
recorddoesnot containany explanationto demonstratethat the beneficiary'smembershiprequired
outstandingachievements,asjudgedby nationalor internationalDanceSportexperts.
Further,asindicatedabove,the plain languageof this regulatorycriterionrequiresevidenceof the
"alien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for whichclassificationis sought." In thiscase,the
field for which classification is soughtis danceinstruction. The petitioner doesnot indicatethat it
requiresthe beneficiary'sservicesas a dancecompetitor. As previouslydiscussed,the statuteand
regulationsrequirethat the beneficiaryseeksto continuework in his areaof extraordinaryability in
the United States. Seesection 101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i);8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(i). Seealso Leev. LN.S.,237 F. Supp.2d at 914. The petitionerhasnot provided
evidencethat the beneficiaryis a memberof any qualifying associationfor dancecoachesor
teachers,or providedevidenceof anyseparateRDSFor DanceSportAssociationof the
membershiprequirementsapplicabletoteachersor instructors.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot submittedtheinitial requiredevidencenecessaryto meet
theplain languagerequirementsof this criterion.
Publishedmaterial in professionalor major tradepublications or major mediaabout
the alien, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought,
which shall include the title, date, and author of' suchpublished material, and any
necessarytranslation
Page13
To meetthe third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),the petitionermust submit published
material in professionalor major tradepublicationsor major media about the alien, relating to the
alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought,which shallincludethetitle. date.andauthor
of such publishedmaterial, and any necessarytranslation. The petitioner does not claim that the
beneficiarymeetsthis criterion. The petitionerhasnot providedpublishedmaterialsfrom which the
petitionercandemonstratethebeneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaimasacompetitive
danceror coach,nordid it provideanyarticlesrelatingto theworkof thebeneficiary'sstudentsin the
sportof competitivedance.
In light of the above,thepetitioner hasnot submittedthe initial requiredevidencenecessaryto meet
theplain languagerequirementsof this criterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation onapanel,or individuallyasajudge of theworkof
othersin thesameor in an alliedfield of specializationto thatfor whichclassificationis
sought
To meetthefourthcriterion,at8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4).thepetitionermustsubmitevidenceof
thebeneficiary'sparticipationon a panchor individually, asajudgeof thework of othersin thesameor
in analliedfield of specializationto thatfor whichclassificationis sought.Although,asstatedabove,
thepetitionerhasprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiarywasissueda "Republiccategorycoachand
first-degreejudge'' licenseby the RDSFon September12,2010,thepetitionerdid not specifically
addressthis criterion prior to the director'sdecision. On appeal,the petitionerassertsthat the
beneficiarycan in fact satisfy this criterion and has submittedevidenceto establishthat the
beneficiary officiated in threeevents: n internationaljuvenile open-stylecompetitionon
ett vetitm in and an internationaljuvenile Latin competitionon
Uponreview,thesubmittedevidencesatisfiestheplain languageof theevidentiarycriterionat 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4).
Evidenceof the alien s original scientific. scholarly artistic. athletic. or business-
relatedcontributionsofmajorsignificancein thefield.
The fifth criterion requiresthe petitionerto submit evidenceof the beneficiary'soriginal scientific,
scholarly,artistic,athleticor business-relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5).Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion,andthe
AAO finds noevidencein therecordrelevantto this criterion.Therecordcontainsreferencelettersthat
acknowledgethebeneficiary'sskills andsuccessasadanceranddanceinstructor,but noneof theletters
indicatethatthebeneficiaryhasmadeoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificancetothefield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedtheinitial requiredevidencenecessaryto meet
theplain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional
journals, or othermajormedia
Page14
The petitionerhasnot attemptedto establishthat thebeneficiaryhasauthoredscholarlyarticlesin the
field in professionalor major tradepublicationsor other major media,or otherwiseclaimedthat the
beneficiarymeetsthesixth criterionsetforthat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6).
Evidencethat the alien has been employedin a critical or essentialcapacity for
organizationsandestablishmentsthatluwea distinguishedreputation
The petitionerdoesclaim thatthebeneficiarymeetstheseventhcriterion,which requiresthepetitioner
to submitevidencethatthebeneficiarywasemployedin acritical or essentialcapacityfor organizations
andestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation.8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).
Evidencethat the alien has commandeda high salary or other significantly high
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield.
The petitioner statedthat the beneficiarymeetsthis criterion basedon his past salary as a dance
instructor. On appeal,thepetitionersubmittedlettersfrom r resentativesof two of the beneticiary's
past employers,the DanceSport Federationo The record
indicatesthatthebeneficiaryworkedfor D2mceSportFederationa om to 2005and
from 2006to 2011. Therecordreflectsthatthebeneficiaryworkedfor th from
2005to2006.Therecordalsoindicatesthatthebeneficiarywaspaidanannualsalaryof $29,000while
workingfo andanannualsalaryof $35,500whileworkingfor
Bothlettersstatethattheapplicant"commandeda highsalaryin comparisonto
otherdancemstructorsof his caliber" and both lettersstatethat they haveenclosed"a SalarySurvey
showing the averagewagesof danceinstructorswith similar experienceas [the beneficiaryJ. .
However,the recorddoesnot containthe SalarySurveyreferredto by the lettersverifying the
beneficiary'spastemployment.Therefore,sincethepetitionerhasnotofferedanyevidenceasto what
constitutesa "high salary"for a danceinstructorin Russia,suchasa statisticalcomparisonof salariesin
the field, the petitioner has not submittedthe initial requiredevidencenecessaryto meet the plain
languagerequirementsof this criterion regardingthe beneficiary'spastearnings.
Thepetitioneralsostatesstatedthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterionbasedon hisprofferedannual
salaryof $60,000. Firstly, we note that the petitionerhasprovidedwage data for no lessthan four
differentoccupationaltitles in an attemptto establishthatthe beneficiaryearnsa high salary: "dance
instructor" "dancer" "coachesandscouts",and"self-enrichmenteducationteachers".Of these,the
occupationof "danceinstructor"appearsto be the appropriateclassificationfor the beneficiarv's
profferedposition.
Regardingthe beneficiary's proffered salary, as a point of comparison,the petitioner relied on a
statementof the median hourly earningsof dance instructorsfor May 2012 from Payscale
(www.payscale.com)indicatinga rangein hourly earningsbetween$8.21and$29.36for Floridaand
six other major cities. In addition, the petitioner also provided salary data for May 2012 for the
occupationof danceinstructorin Miami,Florida,whichindicatesthattheaveragesalaryin thefield is
$41,000.However,thebeneficiary'ssalarymustbeevaluatedon a nationallevelandshouldnotbe
restrictedto datafor certainlocalities. Therefore,evidencerelatingto the averagesalariesfor the
positionin Floridaneednotbeconsidered.However,wenotethatthedatafromPayscaleregardingthe
sevenmajorciticsindicatesthattheaveragehourlywagefor theoccupationrangesfrom $8.21to$100.
Page15
Given that the petitioner indicalesthat the beneficiarywill be employedon a full-time basis,his
profferedsalaryof $60,000wouldbeequivalenttoanhourlywageof $28.85perhour
In addition,thepetitionerhassubmitteda statementfrom Payscalefor May 2012indicatingthenational
salaryrangefor a danceinstructorbaseduponyearsof experience.A danceinstructorwith five to nine
yearsof experiencehasasalaryrangeof $16,800to 78,000,andwith 10to 19yearsof experiencehasa
salaryrangeof $19,200to 39,120.
Basedon the national data for the relevantoccupationand time period, we can concludethat the
beneficiary'sprofferedsalaryof $60,000is notsubstantiaHyhigherthanthedatacitedby thepetitioner
amongsimilarlyemployedindividuals.
In light of the above,thepetitioner hasnot submittedthe initial requiredevidencenecessaryto meet
theplain languagerequirementsof this criterion.
C. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein the contextof whetheror not the petitioner hasdemonstrated:(l) a
"level of expertiseindicating thatthe individual is oneof thatsmall percentagewho haverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and(2) "that thealien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the l'ield
of expertise."Seesection101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)and8 C.F.R.§
214.2(o)(3)(iii);seealw Kazarian.2010WL 725317at *3.
Theweightgivento evidencesubmittedto fulfill thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii),depends
on the extentto which suchevidencedemonstrates,reflects,or is consistentwith sustainednational
or internationalacclaimat thevery top of thealien'sfield of endeavor.A lower evidentiarystandard
would not be consistentwith the regulatorydefinition of "extraordinaryability." 8 C.F.R. §
214.2(o)(3)(ii).
In this case,the deficienciesin the documentationsubmittedby the petitionerhavealreadybeen
addressedin theprecedingdiscussionof theregulatorycriteriaat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
In evaluatingour final merits determination,we must look at the totality of the evidenceto
determinethebeneficiary'seligibility pursuantto section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct. Uponreview,
theAAO finds that the petitioner hasnot establishedthat the beneficiaryhasrisento thevery top of
thesportof competitiveballroom dancingasanathlete. Furthermore,thepetitionerdoesnot seekto
hire the beneficiary as a competitive dancer,but rather as a danceinstructor. The petitioner has
submitted minimal evidence of the beneficiary's experience as a dance instructor, and no
documentationof his achievementsasan instructor. As discussedabove,in a casewhereanalien
hasachievedrecentnationalor internationalacclaimasanathleteandhassustainedthatacclaimin
the field of coachingat a national level, we canconsiderthe totality of the evidenceasestablishing
¯ Although this petition denies that the proffered position is a full-time, it does not state the number of hours the
applicantis expectedto work perweek. Ilowever, in its April 1,2012letter,thepetitionerstatesthatthe applicant"will
teachclassesMonday - Fridayfrom 4:nDp.m. to 10:00p.m. . . 1lewill teachon Saturdayfrom 10:00a.m.to 3:00p m
Page16
an overall pattern of sustainedacclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that
coachingis within the beneficiarv's areaof expertise. A coachor instructorwho hasanestablished
successfulhistory of training athleteswho competeregularly at the national level has a credible
claim. The recordcontainsonly passingreferencesto the beneficiary'steachingexperience.andno
evidencethathehascoachedanytop dancers.Thebeneficiary'sdocumentedaccomplishmentsasa
danceinstructor,therefore,fall far shortof establishingthathe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisento thevery topof thefield of endeavor"andthathe"hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandrecognitionfor achievementsin thefieldof expertise."
While thebeneficiaryhasundoubtedlycompetedwith successat thejuvenile,junior andadultlevels
of dancesportcompetitionsbetween1995and2011,regardingtheapplicant'ssuccessat thejuvenile,
andjunior levels, the beneficiary'sachievementsmust be comparedto all athletesand not only to
other children and youth competingin the sport. In addition,upon review it appearsthat the
beneticiarv'sadult awardswere all in competitionsin with the exceptionof two
competitions sponsoredby the petitioner in 2011. The record simply does not contain
documentationto supportthe petitioner's claims that the beneficiary's first, secondand third place
finishesin danceeventsarenationallyor internationally-recognizedawardsor prizesfor excellence
in the beneficiary'sfield, asrequiredby 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1). Thepetitionerfailed to
provideany evidenceto corroborateits claimsthat the beneficiaryhasparticipatedin, muchless
won,"major" awardsin the field of competitiveballroomdance.TheAAO wouldexpectimathlete
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(o)(3)(iii). A 1", 2"" m 3''' place finished in a
junior or regional competition is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's placementin the top
echelonof athletesin thesport.
Further,thereis no evidenceindicatingthat the beneficiaryintendsto continuecompetingas a
ballroomdancerin the UnitedSlatesunderthetermsof employmentofferedin theinstantpetition.
As discussedpreviously,thestatuteandregulationsrequirethebeneficiary'snationalor international
acclaimto besustainedandthatheseeksto continuework in his areaof extraordinaryability in the
UnitedStates.Seesection10l(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)and8 C.F.R.
§§214.2(o)(3)(i)and(iii). Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthebeneficiaryhasreceivedany
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardsasadanceinstructor.
Moreover,the petitioner hasfailed to submit evidencein the form of publishedmaterialsaboutthe
beneficiary that demonstratesthat the beneficiaryhassustainedacclaim as a danceinstructor. See
section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act, SU.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) and 8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). The petitioner has not submitted any published materials about the
beneficiary.While thebeneficiary'smembershipin theDanceSportAssociationof the
and likely membershipin the RussianDanceSportFederationis noted,the petitioneralso
failed to submitevidentiarydocumentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin the field for
which classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby
recognizedor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields, andthusdid not satisfythe plain
languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). Basedon the evidencesubmitted,it
appearsthat competitivedancersof any ageandproficiency level areeligible for membershipin the
DanceSportAssociationof th
Page17
Beyond the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), the petitioner submitted several
letters of support from the beneficiary's peersand former instructors. While referenceletterscan
provide useful information about an alien s qualifications or help in assigningweight to certain
evidence,suchlettersdo not equateto extensiveevidenceof the alien's achievementsandrecognition
asrequiredby thestatuteandregulations.andwill not beconsidered"comparableevidence"of same.
Thenonexistenceof requiredevidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i).
The classification soughtrequires"extensivedocumentation"of sustainednational or international
acclaim. Seesection 101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),and 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii). Primaryevidenceof achievementsandrecognitionis of far greaterprobativevalue
thanopinionstatementsfrom individualsselectedby thepetitioneror thebeneficiary.
The petitioner submitteda letter from first vice presidentof the
The witnessdoesnot statehow he becameawareof the beneficiary's work. He states
that the beneticiary "won national recognition as lead coachof winners of our competitions." and
lists the namesof two of the beneficiary'sstudentsandthejunior level competitionswhich they
won. Thewitnessalsostatesthatthebeneficiaryhas"designeduniquebodyconditioningtechniques
that enable dancers to enhance and broaden their dancing abilities and skills," and that the
beneficiary's methods have been implemented in prestigious dance schools and ''have changed
Ballroom danceinstruction world-wide." However, the witnessdoesnot identify the beneficiary's
uniquebodyconditioningtechniquesor anydanceschoolsadoptingsuchtechniques.
f First CoastClassicDancesportChampionshipsstatesthatthebeneficiaryis well-
recognizedasanoutstandingballroom dancer,choreographerand instructor. He doesnot statehow
hebecameawareof the beneficiarv'swork.
a professionalballroomdancer,statesthat he hasworkedpreviouslywith both the
petitioning studio and the beneficiary. The witnessstateshe has "observed [the beneficiaryl as a
junior competitor since he was only eight yearsof age" and that the beneficiary is "an extremely
talenteddancer,world classcompetitiorandprofessionalteacherof high caliber "
i professionalballroomdancerin Moscow,Russia,doesnot statehow hebecame
awareo le eneficiary'swork. Hestatesthatthebeneficiaryhas"won someawardsfor trainingof
pairsChampionsof Denmark,Russiaand Norway," althoughhe doesnot identify the pairs-team
members.
from in Jacksonville,Florida, who owns one of the petitioning studios,staresthat
shehasbeenin the ballroom danceindustry for 30 years,hasknown the beneficiary for more than
15years,and"worked with him back in Russia." Shestatesthat the beneficiaryis "one of the best
maleprofessionaldancersin his field."
a professionalballroom dancerfrom RanchoPalosVerde,California, doesnot state
how shebecameawareof the beneficiarv'swork. Shestatesthat the beneficiary'sstudents"became
championsof Norway,Denmark,RussiaandUSA althoughshedoesnot identifythebeneficiarvs
studentstowhomsheisreferring.
Page18
of USA Dance, Inc., Cape Coral, Florida, statesthat the beneficiary's
students have participated in. and won, many of our competitions, including events at the US
National Championships The witnessdoes not identify the beneficiary^sstudentsto whom he is
referring.
of EmeraldBall Championshipsand of Ohio StarBall,
an f the thur Murray InternationalDanceBoard,usealmostidentical languagestating
that the beneficiary "won many of our competitions and drew national recognition from the
dancesportcommunity in the United States.
a professionalballroomdancerin Moscow,Russia,statesthat hehasknown
the beneficiary for more than 10 years."not only as an outstandingperformer . . . but also as an
exceptionaldancecoach." He statesthe beneficiary"produceda greatnumberof dancersthat
reachedthe highestlevel of technicalandperformancequality." He lists the namesof five of the
beneficiary'sstudentsandthejunior level competitionswhich theywon.
i i rad
Russia,submittedlettersusingalmostidentical language. They statethat the beneficiaryworked as
a coach-choreographerfor both danceclub from September1998 until
March2011. Theystatethatin 2001,the beneiciary an us partnerwere"amongthe top 20 best
couplesin theworld youthcategory"andthatthe beneficiary"hasproducedseveralawardwinning
ballroom dancecouplesthat have placed in the top three in finals at different international
competitions."Thewitnessesdo not identify the beneficiary'saward-winningdancecouples.The
AAO notesthat this undatedstatementof is inconsistentwith a statementfrom
thewitnessdatedJune24, 2012submittecon appea, m w uc1 thewitnessstatesthat thebeneficiary
workedfo from November2005throughDecember2006.
owner of the dance studio Russia,statesthat the
1eneiciary war 'e or him for two yearsasa full time ancems ruc or.
a professionalballroomdancer,statesthatshehasknownthebeneficiaryfor 13
yearsasa memberof "oneof thetopamateurcouplesin Russia.
directorof thedancestudi. statesthathebeneficiary
"cloreograp e the modernballroomdancesof our company,an astaughtmasterclassesin my
primary, secondaryand undergraduatestudentlevels for the 2007 to 2011 schoolyears." He states
that whetherthe beneficiarvis choreographingor teachingthe beneficiary"displays an original gift
to theart of dance.
a dancesporttrainer, adjudicatorand lecturer,statesthat the beneficiary"has
tremendousskill andtalentasa professionaldancesportathlete." Shedoesnot statehow shebecame
awareof thebeneficiarv'swork. Shelists 10adultdancecompetitionsin whichtheapplicantplaced
in thetop threefrom 2002to 2006in andfive youthcompetitionsin whichthe
applicantplacedin the top threefrom 1999to 2000in Poland,Ukraine,Denmark,Armeniaand
Latvia. Shestatesthat the beneficiary"is in the companyof internationallyrecognizeddancesport
Page19
athletescompetingtoday." She also statesthat as part of the beneficiarv's employmentwith the
petitioner. "he will compete in a rigorous scheduleof competitions over the next five years.
althoughshedoesnot statethe basisfor her knowledge. To the contrary, as statedabove,thereis
nothingin the employmentdocumentssubmittedby the petitionerto suggestthat the beneficiary
would be performingon nationalor worldwide tours,competingin DanceSportcompetitions,or
rehearsingfor such events,as a condition of his employmentwith the petitioner. Nor hasthe
petitionerprovidedevidencethat instructorsemployedby its studio aresimultaneouslyworking for
thepetitionerasprofessionaldancers.
presidentof thepetitioningdancestudio organizationin Coral Gables,Florida,states
the beneficiaryis an outstandingballroomdancerand instructorwho haswon internationaland
national dancesportcompetitions. The witness also statesthat the beneficiary's students"have
becomeinternationalchampionswinnin> Germanand PolandOpen Championshipsand most
recently,UK prestigiousinternational althoughhe doesnot identify the
beneficiary'sstudentsto whom heis referring.
anemployeeof thepetitioningdancestudioorganizationin Albuquerque,New
Mexico,statesthat he hasknownof the beneficiary'swork sincethe bcneticiarybecameafGliated
with thepetitioningstudio,andthatthebeneficiaryis a fine teacheranddancer.
While we acknowledgethat the above-referencedindividuals supportthe beneficiary'spetition. the
AAO cannotexemptthe petitioner from submitting evidencethat satisfiesthe regulatorycriteria at
8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or (B). Theevidenceof recordsimplydoesnot supporta conclusion
thatthebeneficiaryis a "nationally or internationallyrecognized"danceinstructor,or that hereached
thelevelof a nationally-recognizedcompetitivedancer.
While someof thebeneficiary'speershavepositively.but vaguely,endorsedthebeneficiary'sskill
asan instructorin dance.suchendorsementscannotbe acceptedin lieu of direct evidenceof the
beneficiarv'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaimasa danceinstructor in accordancewith the
regulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The O-1 classificationis not intendedfor
personswhoaremerelywell-qualifiedin theirfield. In addition,asstatedabove,theAAO findsthat
additional documentaryevidenceis neededto establish that the beneficiarv's studentshave won
nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for excellence in the field. While the
petitionerhasprovidedthenamesof thebeneficiary'sclaimedaward-winningstudentsthepetitioner
hasnotprovideddocumentaryevidenceof theirawards.Thepetitionerhasnotadequatelyexplained
why documentaryevidenceof suchawardsof the beneSciary'sstudentsis not available. In addition.
third party statementsthat the beneficiary's students have won nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein the field areinsufficientto meetthis criterion.Going
on recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe
burdenof proofin theseproceedings.Matterof'Soffici,22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm.1998)(citing
Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, asstated
above,theevidenceindicatesthatthe beneficiaryhasonly beenteachingdancerscompetingat the
junior level. Even if the petitionerhad submittedcopiesof the awards,an internationalaward
receivedby a studentcompetingat thejunior level would not carrythe sameevidentiaryweightas
an international award received by a competitor at the adult, professional level, without some
Page20
additional explanationas to how the sport is governedat the junior level. The petitioner has not
establishedthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstoneof a
successfulextraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions
statementssubmittedasexpertlestimony. SeeManer of CaronInternational, 19I&N Dec. 791,795
(Commr. 1988). USCESis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthefinal determinationregardingan
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe
petitionis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoseletters
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795-796;seealso Matter of V-K, 24
I&N Dec.500,n.2(B[A 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimonydoesnotpurportto beevidence
as to "fact"). Thus, the contentof the experts'statementsand how they becameawareof the
beneficiary'sreputationare importantconsiderations. Even when written by independentexperts.
letterssolicited by an alien in supportof an immigration petition areof lessweight thanpreexisting,
independentevidenceof achievementsand recognition that one would expectof a danceinstructor
whohassustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
We cannotignorethat the statuterequiresthe petitioner to submit "extensivedocumentation"of the
beneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaim. The petitionerseeksto rely primarily on
vaguetestimonial lettersratherthanon any primary evidenceof the beneficiary'sachievementsasa
danceinstructor. Wearenotpersuadedthatevidencewith thenumerousdeficienciesnotedequates
to "extensivedocumentation"demonstrativeof an individual with sustainednationalor international
acclaim. The truth is to be determinednot by the quantity of evidencealone but by its quality.
Matter of Chawathe,25 I&N Dee,at 376 citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec.77, 80 (Comm'r. 1989).
Thepetitionerseeksto qualify the beneficiaryfor a highly restrictivevisa classification,intendedfor
individuals alreadyat the top of their respectivefields. The conclusionwe reachby consideringthe
evidenceto meeteachcriterionseparatelyis consistentwith a reviewof theevidencein theaggregate.
Evenin theaggregate,theevidencedoesnotdistinguishthebeneficiaryasoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii).
IIL Conclusion
Reviewof the recorddoesnot establishthat the beneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimself to suchan
extent that he may be said to have achievedsustainednational or international acclaim or to be
within the small percentageat the very top of his field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the
petitioner's achievementsset him significantly abovealmost all others in his field at a nationalor
internationallevel. Theextraordinaryability provisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto be
highly restrictive.See 137Cong. Rec.S18247(daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish
eligibility for O-1classification,thepetitionermustestablishthatthebeneficiaryis "attheverytop"of
hisfield of endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii).Thebeneficiary'sachievementshavenot yetnsento
thislevel.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirely
with thepetitioner. Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thatburdenhasnot beenmet.
Page21
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed