dismissed O-1B Case: Ballroom Dance

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
PETITION RECEIPT# : 
U.S. Depa•·tmc nt of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cit izenship and Imm igration Service 
Admini strative Appeal s Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave .• N.W. , MS 2090 
Washin gton. DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 I (a)( lS)(O)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act , 8 U .S.C. § llOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case . 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R . § 103 .5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form 1-2908 web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
~OV~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeal s Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0) , as an 
alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner, a ballroom dance studio, requests that the 
beneficiary be granted 0-1 classification so that she may work as a dance director/instructor in the 
United States for a period of three years. 
On October 22, 2014, the director denied 
the petition, concluding that the submitted e'vidence did 
not satisfy any of the evidentiary requirements applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the 
arts, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or (B). The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. 
The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to us. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is eligible for the classification sought. The petitioner submits a 
brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that 
the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility as an individual with extraordinary ability 
in the arts. Accordingly, we will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. Pertinent Law and Regulations 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part: 
"Extraordinary ability in the .field of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or 
well-known in the field of arts." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary 's recognition in the field through evidence that the alien has been 
nominated for, or the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes in the 
particular field such as an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grarnmy, or a Director's Guild Award. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner 
must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that satisfies at least three of the six categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l)-(6). If the petitioner demonstrates that certain 
criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv)(B) 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself,. establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance , probative value , and credibility , both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence , to determine whether the fact to 
be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii) defines , in pe1tinent part: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine 
arts, visual arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. 
Additionally , the regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2( o )(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. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts 
certifying 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. 
II. Beneficiary's Area of Extraordinary Ability 
As a preliminary matter , we note that the petitioner claimed eligibility under the evidentiary criteria 
for aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) , and asserted that the 
beneficiary meets the standard of "distinction" applicable to the arts, pursuant to the definition at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). The director reviewed the petition under these criteria and determined that 
the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The director also noted that based upon the evidence of record that the beneficiary is clearly 
coming to the United States to train others for athletic events, the petitioner should have requested 
review of the petition according to the "extraordinary ability" criteria applicable to athletes, and 
pursuant to the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
While dancers in stage, film and television productions are considered performing artists for the 
purposes of this classification, the record shows that the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in 
the field of competitive ballroom dance , also known as ' Although the petitioner 
emphasizes on appeal that ballroom dance is "practiced as a social, performance and entertainment 
art, as well as a competitive activity " and highlights the "artistic , performance and entertainment 
aspects" of events, the evidence of record supports the director's determination that the 
beneficiary will be performing as a dancer in the capacity of a competitive ballroom dance 
instructor/ coach. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 4 
We take notice of the fact that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has formally recognized 
as a sport under consideration for inclusion in the Olympic Garnes, although it is not 
yet a medal sport in the Olympic Garnes, and that the 
formerly the IDSF, has been designated as the world governing body ofthe sport. The recognition 
of by the IOC is a clear indication that or competitive ballroom dance, 
has evolved into an acknowledged form of athletic competition. 
We note that 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 "athlete" 
or as an "artist." 
Here, the beneficiary is clearly coming to the United States to train others for athletic events, even 
if those students are not required to compete. Accordingly, the petitioner should have requested 
review of the petition according to the "extraordinary ability" criteria applicable to athletes, and 
pursuant to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
The regulations clearly prescribe different evidentiary criteria and standards of review for aliens of 
extraordinary ability in the arts as opposed to aliens of extraordinary ability in athletics. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
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 of the 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 Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and 
discussing the less restrictive standard for the arts). 
The director appropriately reviewed the petition according to the classification requested on the 
Form I-129. USCIS will only consider the visa classifications that the petitioner annotates on the 
petition. The Ninth Circuit has determined that once USCIS concludes that an alien is not eligible 
for the specifically requested classification, the agency is not required to consider, sua sponte, 
whether the alien is eligible for an alternate classification. Brazil Quality Stones, Inc., v. Chertoff, 
Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2743927 (9th Cir. July 10, 2008). 
However, a petitioner sponsoring an 0-1 athlete cannot seek consideration of the petition under the 
less restrictive standard of "distinction " by characterizing the beneficiary's field as arts. The 
petitioner has not sought the correct 0-1 visa classification for the beneficiary, nor has it claimed 
or submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets the criteria and standards for 
individuals of extraordinary ability in athletics as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(iii)(A) or (B). 
Accordingly , the appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
III. Factual and Procedural History 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of Portugal who began competing in ballroom 
dance in , at the age of years old. The record reflects that in the beneficiary was 
certified as a Dancesport Coach by the 
The petitioner has worked as a dance instructor/coach for 
several years in Portugal. 
The petitioner 's agreement with the beneficiary indicates that she will be employed in the United 
States as a dance instructor/director. The beneficiary will be responsible for instructing the 
petitioner's students 
and training other staff instructors, and she will be responsible for attending a 
minimum of eight competitions per year. In 
addition , the testimonial evidence provided indicates that the beneficiary is seeking to coach in the 
United States. 
While a competitive ballroom dancer and a dance instructor certainly share knowledge of dance, 
the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus , competitive dancing and dance instruction 
are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation, as applied to competitive athletes and 
athletic coaches, has been upheld in Federal Court. In Lee v. INS, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. 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. 
!d. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. Nevertheless , this office has 
recognized that there exists a nexus between playing or practicing and coaching a given sport . To 
assume that every competitive dancer ' s area of expertise includes teaching or instruction , however , 
would be too speculative. To resolve this issue, the following balance is appropriate. In a case 
where an alien has clearly demonstrated extraordinary ability as a dancer-athlete and has sustained 
that acclaim in the field of instruction , we can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing 
an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary abilit y such that we can conclude that 
instruction is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. Specifically , in such a case we will 
consider the level at which the alien acts as an instructor. An instructor who has an established 
successful history of instructing dancers who compete regularly or perform at a high level has a 
credible claim; an instructor of novices does not. In this matter , the petitioner asserts the 
beneficiary has been coaching for several years. Accordingly , while the beneficiary ' s competitive 
accomplishments are relevant, the petitioner must establish her eligibility as a dancesport coach. 
For the reason s discussed below , the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has a high 
level of achievement in the arts, evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantiall y above 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 6 
that ordinarily encountered to the extent that she is recognized as prominent , renowned , leading , or 
well-known in the field of dance. 
IV. Analysis 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R . 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) . In denying the petition , the director determined that the 
evidence submitted meets none ofthese criteria. After careful review, the evidence of record does not 
establish that the petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has 
been nominated for or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes 
in the particular field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
production with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulation lists an 
Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy , or a Director 's Guild award as examples of qualifying 
significant awards or prizes . The director determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence to 
satisfy this criterion. The record does not include evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of any 
prizes or awards relating to her coaching ability . Instead, the record contains evidence of the 
beneficiary's receipt of prizes and awards during her career as a dance athlete. We agree the 
evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary ' s awards and prizes constitute significant 
national or international awards or prizes in coaching or even athletics. 
First, the petitioner has provided a number of photographs of the beneficiary participating in dance 
tournaments and of trophies. The petitioner has also provided numerous foreign award certificates. 
The photographs include typewritten notations describing the events and trophies featured in the 
photographs. The actual photographs of the events or trophies , however, do not corroborate the 
typewritten notations. The beneficiary's name is not visible on any of the trophies. In addition, 
with respect to the foreign award certificates, the petitioner has not provided English translations 
of those certificates as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) , which provides that 
"[a]ny document containing foreign language submitted to [USCIS] shall be accompanied by a full 
English language 
translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English." As such , these awards certificates do not constitute probative evidence and do not have 
any evidentiary weight. 
Third , even if the petitioner had submitted qualifying translations , the petitioner has not shown that 
the awards and prizes the beneficiary received constitute significant national or international awards 
or prizes in the field. In response to the director 's request for evidence (RFE) , the petitioner provided 
a list of numerous "national" prizes and awards won by the beneficiary during her career as a dance 
athlete from to On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary "is the winner of 
awards in Ballroom Dance competitions sponsored by . 
or the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 7 
the only Portuguese dance organization that is a member of the 
" and that "[t]o win a first place award in a national 
competition is the Portuguese Ballroom Dance equivalent of winning an EMMY." However, without 
documentation to provide additional context regarding the beneficiary's awards within the scope of 
her occupation, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's awards in the DanceSport 
field are regarded as comparable to, for example, an Emmy award in the arts. It is the petitioner's 
burden to establish how the submitted evidence establishes eligibility under the regulatory 
criterion. The petitioner references the beneficiary's "photobiography ." That document, however, 
does not demonstrate the significance of the awards listed and pictured therein. The petitioner did 
not submit evidence such as major trade or general media coverage of the events that might 
establish how the field views the competition. 
On appeal the petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary's _ prize for her Cha-Cha-Cha 
performance in the television program "is the Portuguese television equivalent of 
winning a United States dance reality show such as "Dancing with the Stars" or "So You Think You 
Dance." Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's award 
received by the beneficiary is a significant national or international award or prize that rises to the 
level comparable to an Academy Award or Emmy Award, the examples provided in the 
regulations. The petitioner has provided a photograph of the trophy the beneficiary received for 
her participation in the show. The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
of the , the broadcasting network that aired the show, 
stating as follows: 
This is to confirm that [the beneficiary] patiicipated in the' program and she 
was the winner of the ' with around 23m43s of air time. She 
also participated in the Grand Finale of the ' 
The petitioner further provided information from the website 
. describing the television show format 
as a pairs contest, with the election of a weekly winning pair who "will be invited to attend the 
semi-final and then the grand finale." The evidence indicates that the program ran for 18 episodes. 
The petitioner submitted additional information about the television channel that does not address 
the show. The record contains insufficient evidence regarding the application, nominating, or 
selection process used by the body issuing the award, the eligibility criteria, or the extent to which 
the winners of such awards were recognized beyond the issuing body. The winners and nominees 
of Academy and Emmy awards, for example, receive significant national and international media 
attention as the result of their recognition, and the awards themselves are considered among the 
highest achievements attainable in the performing arts. Moreover, while the petitioner won one 
edition and participated in the Grand Finale, she did not win an award at the Grand Finale. 
Without documentation to provide additional context regarding the beneficiary 's awards within the 
scope of her profession , we cannot conclude that the beneficiary's awards in the dance field are 
regarded as comparable to, for example, an Academy award in the motion picture field or an 
Emmy award in the television industry. It is the petitioner's burden to establish how the submitted 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
evidence establishes eligibility under the regulatory criterion. Finally, the beneficiary 's 
competitive awards cannot establish her eligibility as an instructor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has received or been nominated 
for a significant national or international prize or award that would qualify her for 0-1 status under 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). 
Therefore, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under ·at least three of the six 
evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). We will address these criteria below.' 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as 
evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, 
contracts, or endorsements 
The director determined that the petitioner's evidence does not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
The petitioner asserts on appeal that the beneficiary's participation in competitive events 
satisfies this criterion. However, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary 
performed services as a lead or starring participant in relation to any of the other competitors who 
participated in the same events or that any of the competitive events in which the beneficiary has 
performed have a distinguished reputation. In addition, the director noted that the petitioner has not 
provided critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts or endorsements 
about the beneficiary as a dancer, as required by the plain language of the regulation. As the 
petitioner has submitted none of this documentary evidence the petitioner cannot support its 
conclusion that the beneficiary's achievement of relatively high finishes at competitive DanceSport 
events is tantamount to providing services as a lead or starring participant in productions with a 
distinguished reputation. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158 , 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCal (fornia , 14 I&N Dec . 
190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Even if the petitioner had established the distinguished reputation of the DanceS port competitions in 
which the beneficiary has achieved a high finish, a distinction must be made between winning or 
placing in an athletic competition and providing services as a lead or starring participant in an artistic 
production or event. Achieving a favorable result in an athletic competition is not indicative of 
providing services in a lead or starring capacity for an artistic production or event. 
The petitioner also asserts that the beneficiary played a leading or starring role in the episode of the 
television program in which she a won prize for her Cha-Cha-Cha 
performance. However, the evidence of record does not refer to the reputation of the 
1The petitioner does not claim that it meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
program, and the petitioner submitted no evidence regarding the reputation of 
program as an event that has a distinguished reputation. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter ofTr easure Craft o.fCal?fornia, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190.) Moreover, as with the APPSDI events, the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
winning an award in one episode is performing services as a lead or starring participant for the show. 
The record also contains evidence that the beneficiary appeared in an brand 
television commercial promoting the : . The petitioner indicates that 
the company and its festival have distinguished reputations. While may be a 
well-known company in its respective industry, the fact that the beneficiary appeared in its 
commercial is insufficient evidence of performing as a lead or starring participant in the festival. 
As noted by the director, the petitioner has submitted copies of call sheets from the commercial 
indicating that the beneficiary had the role of '' " The record does not 
establish how this role fit within the commercial. The petitioner has not provided critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, endorsements, or other evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading role or that the advertising campaign was 
distinguished in any way. 
Further, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary played a leading or starring role in productions of 
as a dancer and choreographer. The petitioner submitted a letter 
from producer . of a cultural organization producing 
children's musicals since Ms. lists four productions and certifies, "that dancer and 
choreographer [the beneficiary] has taken a leading role in our children 's musicals as a critical, 
pivotal, and fundamental part of them, and that her contribution to our shows have been essential 
in their being considered of the highest quality by the parents and teachers that visit us every 
week." The petitioner also provided promotional posters and magazine advertisements for the 
productions, none of which mention the beneficiary. The submitted evidence does not identify 
with specificity the events or productions in which the beneficiary performed services in a lead or 
starring capacity, provide evidence of the beneficiary's role in such events or document the 
distinguished reputation of such events or productions, in the form of critical reviews, 
advertisements , publicity releases, publications , contracts, or endorsements. 
Finally, the regulation requires evidence that the beneficiary will provide services as an artist in a 
leading or starring role for a production or event that has a distinguished reputation. The director 
determined that the petitioner has not provided adequate documentation in the form of critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts or endorsements to show that the 
beneficiary would perform services as a lead or starring participant in upcoming productions or 
events. On appeal, the petitioner did not contest this finding of the director for this criterion, or 
offer additional arguments on appeal. Therefore , the petitioner abandoned this issue. See 
Sepulveda v. US. 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) (finding the plaintiffs 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED ENT DECISION 
Page 10 
In addition to the above, any of the evidence on which the petitioner relies under this criterion 
relating to her accomplishments as a competitor cannot establish her eligibility as an instructor. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the evidentiary criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about 
the individual in major newspapers, trade journals , magazines, or other publications 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the beneficiary and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in major newspapers, trade joumals, magazines or other major 
publications. To qualifY as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. The director determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary 
requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that photographs of the beneficiary taken at the and 
and information about the beneficiary's performance career and 
and dance rankings were published "in the major trade joumals" -
and : The petitioner also asserts that the beneficiary's 
photograph appeared on a promotional poster for the : held in 
France, published on the website The websites featme 
photographs of the beneficiary, but these photographs do not constitute published material about the 
beneficiary. Rather, they constitute coverage of events where the beneficiary participated. Notably, 
the information about indicates that it contains the results of over 25,545 
competitions from 91 countries and includes 874,432 photographs. The information does not suggest 
the website posts articles about individual competitors. Similarly, : · · - simply includes 
a ranking of the amateur league, which includes the beneficiary and her partner. The 
inclusion of the beneficiary in a list of ranked competitors is not material about her. 
The petitioner refers to the following article mentioning the beneficiary: " 
' published in in the newspaper The article is not about the 
beneficiary. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be 
"about the individual." Additionally, the petitioner submitted no information about the distribution or 
readership of the newspaper to establish that is a "major" media publication as required by the plain 
language of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). Similarly, the article in is not about 
the beneficiary. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the evidence satisfies the evidentiary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical 
role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials. 
The director determined that the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary meets the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J). 
On appeal, the petitioner refers to the beneficiary's appearance in the episode of the 
. television program, in which she won prize for her Cha-Cha-Cha performance. The 
petitioner notes that the show was produced by "the television studio/broadcaster " and 
emphasizes that' has a distinguished reputation." The petitioner also refers to the letter from 
producer stating the beneficiary has taken a leading 
role in her group's children's musicals, and asserts that the evidence establishes that 
has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner further refers to a 
letter from , stating that the beneficiary, as a dancer, 
"participated in several of our shows and events," and asserts that the evidence establishes that 
has a distinguished reputation. 
The plain language of the regulation requires "[ e ]vidence that the alien has performed, and will 
perform, in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." (Emphasis added.) The petitioner has not demonstrated how either a 
commercial or show equates to an "organization" or "establishment," and how the beneficiary's 
role as a dancer in an advertisement or a dancer/choreographer in a show rises to the level of a 
lead, starring or critical role for the production company of the advertisement/show. The 
submitted evidence does not describe how the beneficiary contributed to each company as a whole 
or how her position fit within the overall hierarchy of the company. In addition, the petitioner did 
not submit evidence that either or enJoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
Further, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a critical or essential 
capacity at the petitioning entity, or that the petitioner has a distinguished reputation, as required at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J). While the petitioner has established the beneficiary's job title, the 
submitted evidence does not describe how the beneficiary will contribute to the petitioning entity 
as a whole or how her position fits within the overall hierarchy of the company. Nor has the 
petitioner submitted evidence that its dance studio enjoys a distinguished reputation. While the 
petitioner submitted evidence of the services that the petitioning entity provides, as stated on its 
website, this does not constitute evidence regarding the reputation of the petitioning entity. Again, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfy the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J). 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, 
motion pictures or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported 
in trade journals, major newspapers, or other publications 
The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4) requires evidence that the 
beneficiary has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the form of 
published indicators, such as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion pictures or 
television ratings, and media reports. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiaries' titles and rankings 
in events "were published by on the trophies themselves." The beneficiary's trophies are not 
"published" 
indicators within the ordinary meaning of the word "published." The director determined 
that such evidence does not satisfy this criterion. We agree. 
In addition, the petitioner asserts that information about the beneficiary's performance 
career and the beneficiary's and dance rankings were published "in the major trade 
journals" and The amateur 
rankings the petitioner submitted do not establish that the beneficiary has a record of major 
commercial success. With respect to critically-acclaimed success, the rankings are not the type of 
critical review contemplated by this criterion. Moreover, the rankings are the beneficiary's 
competitive rankings. They do not demonstrate her eligibility as an instructor. 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field 
in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly 
indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's 
achievements. 
To meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), the petitioner has submitted 
a number of testimonial letters, all but three of which are from the beneficiary's colleagues, prior 
employers, mentors and students, as well as copies of the beneficiary's trophies received at dance 
competitions between and The letters all praise the beneficiary's abilities as a 
competitive dancer, choreographer and dance teacher. 
In addition to the above, the petitioner submitted a letter from Mayor of the 
Ohio, describing the beneficiary as "one of a small number of individuals who has been 
recognized internationally as a dancesport expert" and stating that the beneficiary "possesses the 
talent to make original and significant contributions." 
The petitioner also provided a letter from Director of 
Mr. states that he "has reviewed the information submitted by [the petitioner] 
which documents [the beneficiary] as an artist of extraordinary ability in the field of dance." Mr. 
expresses his opinion that the beneficiary is qualified for the offered position as an 
Instructor of Standard and Latin. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 13 
The petitioner further provided a letter from a professional competitive dancer, 
describing the beneficiary as "one of a small group of individuals who has been recognized in 
Portugal as a dancesport expert in the competitive field of dance" and stating that the beneficiary 
"possesses the needed talent and experience to make significant original contributions to the field 
of dances port." He states that the beneficiary has been instructing dance students for more than 
eight years, and that she possesses "a rare, intangible star quality" and "an ability to discern a 
student's strengths and weaknesses and make adjustments," reflected in "the results of her students 
in Portugal." Mr. does not state how he first became aware of the beneficiary's work. 
On appeal, the petitioner also emphasized that it submitted a letter from the . 
to satisfy this. The letter from does not satisfy this evidentiary 
criterion. The "no objection" letter from satisfies the petitioner's burden to submit a written 
advisory opinion from an appropriate consulting entity pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D). 
Consultations are advisory and are not binding on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS). See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(D). 
In addition to the testimonial letters, the petitioner submitted the above-referenced documentary 
evidence of the beneficiary 's competitive awards won by the beneficiary during her career as a 
dance athlete from to The petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the 
significance of the awards. 
In the director 's decision denying the petitiOn, the director acknowledged that the petltwner 
submitted testimonial letters from persons who spoke highly of the beneficiary. The director 
found, however, that the evidence was insufficient to meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) because, while all of the authors speak highly of the beneficiary in terms of 
his talent and skills, they did not articulate any specific, significant achievements of the 
beneficiary. The director advised the petitioner that such evidence was inadequate to establish that 
the beneficiary garnered a level of national or international recognition for her purported 
achievements in the arts. 
Upon review, the evidence of record supports the director 's determination that the submitted 
evidence does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) . As noted above, to 
satisfy this evidentiary criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary has 
received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government 
agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which she is engaged. Any testimonials must 
be in a form which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien 's 
achievements. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International , 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Jd. 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. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated , in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Jd. at 795; 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
see also Matter of Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of California, 14 
I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
The submitted reference letters all praise the beneficiary's talent and abilities. The majority of the 
submitted letters are from the beneficiary's colleagues, employers and personal acquaintances, and 
therefore do not demonstrate significant recognition outside of that circle. The remaining letters, from 
do not clearly indicate how the authors came to be 
aware of the beneficiary's achievements as a dancer or a dance instructor. 
While reference letters can provide useful information about a beneficiary's qualifications or help in 
assigning weight to certain evidence, many of the submitted reference letters did not address the 
beneficiary's specific achievements in the sport as an athlete. Those letters that did address specific 
achievements of the beneficiary do not explain how the beneficiary's achievements to date have 
received significant recognition from organizations, critics, government agencies or other 
recognized experts in the field. 
Regarding the beneficiary's competition awards, the significance of the competitions has not been 
established. While the record supports a finding that the beneficiary achieved some successes in 
dance competitions in Portugal, the evidence of record does not establish that her finishes constitute 
"significant recognition for achievements from organizations in the field" pursuant to the plain 
language of the criterion. If the referenced competitive events are major, nationally or 
internationally-recognized events as claimed, it is reasonable for the petitioner to provide 
additional evidence regarding the requirements for entry, and evidence that the beneficiary 
received independent national or international recognition for finishing in the finals of each event. 
While the petitioner did submit printouts from the website listing the 
dates and results of some of the events, the submitted evidence does not establish that the finishes 
rise to the level of "significant recognition" as required by the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion. As stated above, the website indicates it posts the results of over 25,545 competitions. 
Regardless, the beneficiary 's recognition as a competitor cannot establish her eligibility as an 
instructor. 
This classification focuses on the beneficiary's individual achievements and recognition within the 
field. The petitioner has provided little evidence of such recognition. The petitioner's evidence 
pertaining to the beneficiary consists of copies of trophies the beneficiary received in dance 
competitions of undocumented importance or reputation, and a number of testimonial letters which 
were primarily written by the beneficiary's personal acquaintances and solicited specifically for the 
purpose of supporting her nonimmigrant petition. As previously discussed, the petitioner has not 
provided documentation that would corroborate the petitioner 's claim that the beneficiary has 
achieved significant recognition as a competitive dance athlete. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that evidence was not considered by the director that the 
beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements as a coach. The director 
acknowledged that the petitioner submitted evidence related to the beneficiary's teaching 
achievements , but did not include any analysis of this evidence . The petitioner requests analysis of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
this evidence as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(C) provides that if the petitioner demonstrates that certain criteria do not readily 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. The petitioner asserts that the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) are not readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation "as a Dance 
Director/Instructor." The petitioner's assertion that the criterion does not apply, without more, is 
insufficient. Moreover , if relying on comparable evidence, the petitioner must also explain how 
the evidence is comparable to the existing criteria, which the petitioner has not done. Accordingly , 
we will review the evidence under the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Dancesport Coach by the 
. The 
petitioner asserts that the beneficiary worked as a dance instructor/coach for several years in 
Portugal, and that several students coached by her have achieved high placements in competitions. 
The record reflects that in the beneficiary was certified as a 
The director found that the petitioner has not provided documentation that would corroborate the 
petitioner 's claim that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements in the 
coaching field. 
In its initial evidence, the petitioner submitted 
competition scorecards for nine dance athletes identified and paired as follows: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The initial evidence also contained promotional materials of unknown ongm containing 
photographs and competition results of each couple. Neither the scorecards nor the promotional 
materials identify the beneficiary as the coach of any of these dance athletes. 
The beneficiary 's coaching experience was documented solely through testimonial evidence. In 
response to the director 's RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
a dancesport competitor, representative of the website and the 
founder of the website She states that she has watched the beneficiary compete 
smce Ms. states that the beneficiary coached the pairs 
and and she 
provides highlights of their achievements from 2012 to 2014, which results she states can be 
verified at . , as follows: 
• 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
• 
• 
Upon review, the record does not contain evidence of the coach-athlete relationship between the 
beneficiary and the athletes she is claimed to have coached. The lack of firsthand evidence of the 
beneficiary's coaching achievements is apparent. For example, if the beneficiary has an established 
successful history of instructing dancers who compete regularly or perform at a high level, it 
would be reasonable to expect her to be able to produce some independent documentation of these 
coach-athlete relationships beyond a testimonial from a person who claims no firsthand knowledge 
of the beneficiary's coaching duties. Furthermore, even if the petitioner did establish the coach­
athlete relationships, it appears that the beneficiary has participated in coaching promising young 
dancers and not dancers who compete regularly or perform at a high level. The petitioner has, 
therefore, not established that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements 
as a coach. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
V. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary has received 
or been nominated for a significant national or international prize or award a major, and the 
documentation submitted does not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria specified in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Consequently, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts and the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
Further, the evidence of record indicates that the beneficiary's claimed area of extraordinary 
ability, competitive ballroom dance, falls within the field of athletics, rather than the arts. As the 
beneficiary's occupation does not fall within the 0-1 classification requested on the petition, the 
appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
(b)(6)