dismissed O-1A Case: Dancesport

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17522107 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 22, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a dance studio, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary 
ability in athletics . To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonirnmigrant classification , available to foreign 
nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) , 8 U .S.C. § l 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy, as required, the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability 
in athletics , either a major , internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets at least three criteria along with comparable 
evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education, business , or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability . Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements . 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) . A petitioner must 
submit evidence either of "a major, internationally recognized award , such as a Nobel Prize," or of at 
least three of eight listed categories of documents . 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B) . If the petitioner 
demonstrates that the criteria in paragraph ( o )(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the individual's 
eligibility . 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(C) . 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification . See 59 Fed . Reg. 41818 , 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification , but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation, seeking to employ the Beneficiary as a DanceSport ( competitive ballroom dancing) 
professional for a period of three years . The record shows that the Beneficiary is a 20-year-old 
DanceSport practitioner who began competing in DanceSportl I in 2010 at the age of ten years 
old, and that he has competed in numerous international, national, regional, and municipal DanceSport 
~tions. Documents submitted by the Petitioner also indicate that the Beneficiary has worked in 
L___J as a dance instructor of children . In its initial letter, the Petitioner describes the Beneficiary as 
"an O-lA Athlete of Extraordinary Ability" who has achieved "extraordinary competitive success" and 
"recognition as one of the leading Ballroom and Latin Dancers and instructors irl !' It 
indicates his duties in the proffered position will be to compete in "national, international, and world­
level DanceSport competitions and showcases as a professional competitive Ballroom and Latin Dancer 
on behalf of our studio , and . . . serve as a Ballroom and Latin Dance Instructor at our Studio ." The 
Petitioner's agreement with the Beneficiary states that he will be employed in the United States as a 
dance instructor and a competitive dancer. The initial submission contained an itinerary for the 
Beneficiary that included annual DanceSport competitions throughout the United States . 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition , the Director determined that the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary met 
the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), and she further found that the Beneficiary 
fulfilled two of the initial evidentiary criteria, receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and membership in associations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). Although we agree with the Director's determination regarding the awards 
criterion, we do not concur with the Director's finding relating to the membership criterion, discussed 
below . 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be detennined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality ." 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the exhibits satisfy two additional criteria and that it also 
submitted comparable evidence of the Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). As 
explained below, we find that the exhibits do not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary categories 
described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) or the comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 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 national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
As discussed earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. In order to 
demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based only on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education 
or experience, 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 is membership requirements rather than 
the association's overall reputation . 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficia!)' meets this criterion based upon his membership in the 
....._ ______________ ___. and the World Dance Sport Federation (~SF). 
1
hile 
the record includes documentary evidence that reflects the Beneficiary 's membership i and 
registration with WDSF, it does not reflect that either organization requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
First, the Petitioner referenced several letters in su1,port of this criterion. I I president of the 
I I the governing body of the sportl J states that the Beneficiary "is considered one of 
the leading members of our Federation and has been accorded an "S" class dance classification, the 
highest such classification accorded to Dance Sport athletes byl I The record contains 
additional letters from a WDSF Adjudicator and coach,.__--r----~- ........... 
Region Director for Dance Studios, I I head coach of 
I I and.__,_-r-1---rr---~a DanceSport athlete with.-----'-----,,_....,..,..___,,___,,....1 
contend that DanceSpo , un 1 e o er spo s, does not have a "Hall of Fame" that only accepts as its 
members "the very best in the field." As previously stated, however, to meet this criterion a petitioner 
must show that the associations require outstanding achievements of their members. As the Petitioner 
maintains that the Beneficiary's membership inl land WDSF satisfies the requirements of this 
criterion, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. The authors of the 
aforementioned letters also emphasize that the Beneficiary was accorded an 'S' Class dance 
classification, which they assert is based on his outstanding achievement in the sport. Although the 
2 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner claimed , but did not establish, that the Beneficiary meets the 
criterion related to high salary under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 8). On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the 
Director's finding that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore , we consider 
this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011 , 2011 WL 4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
Beneficiary's "S" Class dance classification may be a commendable achievement in the field, the 
documents submitted do not establish that either the WDSF or I I require outstanding 
achievements in the field as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Regarding the WDSF, the Petitioner provided screenshots from the WDSF website that show that the 
I I is a national member association of the WDSF, and the Beneficiary 's registration with WDSF 
as a licensed "athlete" and member ofl I The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the WDSF 
Competition Rules, within which rule "D.1 (Membership)" indicates that "[ e Jach competitor in a 
WDSF competition must be a Member of, or formally affiliated with, a WDSF Member body 
representing a country." The WDSF Competition Rules submitted by the Petitioner do not specifically 
define the requirements for "athlete" designation. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that 
WDSF requires outstanding achievements of its "athletes" as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field. 
Regarding thel I the Petitioner provided several screenshots from the association's website that 
provide general information about the organization. The record does not contain evidence, such as a 
translated copy of the official rules or selection procedures from the bylaws or constitution of the I I 
showing the association requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international expert!. The Petitioner provided a foreign-language document that it claims 
contains the Rules of the Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
English language translation . 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from 
the foreign language into English. Id. In addition, the Petitioner provided what it claims is an English 
translation of a portion of that document, but it is not accompanied by the required certification from 
the translator. Because the Petitioner has not submitted full and certified English language translations, 
it did not comply with this regulation. As such, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
Petitioner 's claims. 
Further, the record contains a letter frortj I of th 
who states that in thel hhe highest level of dancesport is •-th_e_S--c-1-a-ss_(_i_n_o_r_de_r_s_t-art-in_g_fi_r_o_m_t_h__.e 
lowest - E, D, C, B, A and S classes)." 3 Moreover, the Petitioner provided a copy of several pages of 
the Beneficiary'~ l"C~mpetitile Dancer Competition Book," in which his dancer classification is 
recorded. The Beneficiary' competition book shows he joined the organization as a "Class C" 
dancer in 2010 at the age of 11, and that his dancer classification level progressed from "C" and "B" 
in 2010 to "A" and "S" in 2013. Although the Beneficiary was eventually accorded the S-Class dancer 
classification in 2013, it is evident that such designation is not a condition for membership in this 
association. Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears that membership in the organization is held 
by competitive dancers of all ages and levels, rather than being reserved for those dancers who have 
recorded outstanding achievements in the field. Thus, the documentation submitted does not show 
that I I requires outstanding achievements of those accepted for admission, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the field. 
3 We note that I~---~ letter is addressed to the Beneficiary 's dance partnerl .... ____ ___, 
4 
For the reasons outlined above, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted documentation 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, and the Director's determination on 
this issue will be withdrawn. 
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 class[fication is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about the 
Beneficiary in professional or major trade publications or major media, as well as the title, date, and 
author of the material. The Petitioner argues, regarding the published materials submitted, that "each 
and every article mentioned and highlighted the Beneficiary's top awards and placements at prominent 
national or international-level DanceSport competitions." The Petitioner does not address any specific 
articles on appeal. 
We note that several of the articles do not include the author of the material. Furthermore, none of the 
articles show published material about the Beneficiary relating to his work. The articles mention the 
Beneficiary's competition results, among those of other competitors. For example, two articles from 
I I and I I respectively, noted that the bronze medal in the Youth Class 2 "was 
earned by [the Beneficiary] and I I from I ts French Dance School" at the 2012 
I I Latin American dance championship inl I An item frorrj I reported the 
Beneficiary's 6th place finish at the 2016 World DanceSport Federation! kiance 
competition inl , I A piece from! lprovides that the Beneficiary and his partner 
were the highest-placinJ I I couple in the Latin-American dances of the 2018["7 Dance 
Championship iq~ _ _._ finishing 9th out o±Ocouples. An article dated 2019 froml I 
indicates that the Beneficial and his partner finished 2nd at a Latin American dance competition. 
Articles froml _I land I I indicate that the Beneficiary 
1
and his 
partner placed 38th at the 201 ~~ ___ _.fhampionships in Latin American Dance in France. 
Although he is referenced, the articles are not about the Beneficiary and do not meet this regulatory 
criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
An additional article, titled was 
published by the website L...----------...-----i---J in 2019. jlthouJh the Petitioner 
provided data from SimilarWeb indicating that ranks 5th in and appears to 
qualify as major media, it did not provide data for.__ ______ _. Regardless, the article from 
I I is not about the Beneficiary; it was written about the 2019 ~ 
Championshi s in Latin American Dance mentioned above. The article reports that thee===J 
cou le placed 8th and provides the identities of 
the~-~ nd .__ _ __. couples who had podium finishes in the event. The article also mentions that 
the Beneficiary and his partner placed 38th out oOpairs in the championships. Again, articles that 
are not about a beneficiary do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008). 
5 
Moreover, with the possible exception of the article froml I the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that any of the websites constitute professional or major trade publications or major 
media. While it provided statistics, such as global rankings, country rankings, category rankings, total 
visits, and website estimated traffic from Similar Web and Alexa, the Petitioner did not explain or show 
the significance of the figures, indicating major status or standing. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary fulfills this regulatory 
criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
As discussed earlier, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that comparable evidence 
"may" be submitted if the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii) do not readily apply to a beneficiary's 
occupation. It is the Petitioner's burden to articulate why one or more criteria do not readily apply to 
the Beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable." On appeal the 
Petitioner maintains that the Director erred in not also considering its submitted exhibits under the 
"comparable evidence" regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C), as comparable evidence of criteria 
applicable to individuals with extraordinary ability in the arts, specifically at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(]), (3), and (5), instead of the criteria related to extraordinary ability in athletics 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). On appeal the Petitioner explains that its evidence should be 
considered as comparable evidence under those criteria "borrowed from the 0-lB classification 
criteria" because "Ballroom and Latin dance (DanceSport) involves artistic expression through 
interpretation of music and choreography." 
However, the Petitioner expressly filed the petition under the 0- lA classification, selecting subsection 
3.a under Section 1 of the O classification supplement, the subsection for petitioners seeking 
classification for extraordinary ability in "sciences, education, business or athletics (not including the 
arts, motion picture or television industry)." The Petitioner also cited the regulations for that category 
in its brief accompanying the filing and asserted that it sought to classify the Beneficiary as "an 0- lA 
Alien of Extraordinary Ability in Athletics." As the Petitioner requested that the Beneficiary be 
granted 0-1 status as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of athletics the Director properly 
limited her review of the evidence as it pertains to the definition of extraordinary ability and specific 
eligibility criteria applicable to that classification at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii). 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A). Further, although the Petitioner 
established that the Beneficiary met the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]), it did not 
4 We also note, upon review, that the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is eligible for classification as an 
individual with extraordinary ability in the arts under the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). We have previously 
found that, although there may be instances in which a competitive ballroom dancer seeks to enter the United States to 
provide services as an entertainer or performing artist, rather than as a competitive dancer-athlete, the nature of the intended 
events or activities in the United States is critical in determining whether the Beneficiary is entering the United States to 
provide services as an "athlete" or as an "artist." Here, as the Beneficiary is clearly coming to the United States to 
participate in or train others for athletic events, the Beneficiary is not engaged in the field of arts. 
6 
establish that he meets the criteria relating to memberships in associations and published materials. 
Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, 
relating to having been employed in a critical or essential capacity for distinguished organizations and 
establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), we need not reach this additional ground. As the 
Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), we reserve this issue. 5 Consequently, the Petitioner has not established the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
7