dismissed O-1B Case: Dance

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT f' 4 2014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washinl!ton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~1f-Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Acting Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, 
and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner, a dance studio, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner 
seeks an extension of the beneficiary's 0-1 status so that he may work in the position of "dance 
professional" for a period of three years. 
The acting director denied the petition, concluding that the submitted evidence 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 acting 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 will uphold the acting director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of 
a qualified alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim ... and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, 
and seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability . ... 
The petitioner filed this petitiOn seeking classification of the beneficiary as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the arts as a ballroom dancer, instructor and coach. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defmes, in pertinent 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. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. To qualify as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of arts, the alien must be recognized as 
being prominent in his or her field of endeavor as demonstrated by the following: 
(A) 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; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) 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; 
(2) 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; 
(3) 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; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically 
acclaimed successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, 
standing in the field, box office receipts, motion picture or television 
ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals, 
major newspapers, or other publications; 
(5) 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; or 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will 
command a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services 
in relation to others in the field, as evidenced by contracts or other 
reliable evidence; or 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in 
order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(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.P.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.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). The acting 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. 
While dancers ill 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 "DanceSport." The petitioner has neither 
claimed nor submitted evidence that the beneficiary will be performing as a dancer in any other 
capacity than that of a competitive ballroom dancer and instructor/coach. 
The evidence of record reflects that the has formally 
recognized DanceSport as a sport under consideration for inclusion in the Olympic Games, 
although it is not yet a medal sport in the Olympic Games. The _ 
formerly the has been designated as the world governing body of the sport. The 
recognition of DanceSport by the is a clear indication that DanceSport, 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
determining whether the beneficiary is entering the United States to provide services as "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 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.P.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.P.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 acting director appropriately reviewed the petition according to the classification requested on 
the Form 1-129. 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.P.R. § 214.2(o)(iii)(A) or (B). 
Accordingly, the petition will be denied for this additional reason. 
As the acting director did not raise the foregoing issue in her decision, we will nevertheless review 
the petitioner's claim that it satisfied the evidentiary requirements and less restrictive standard of 
"distinction" applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
III. Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Requested Classification 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of the Russian Federation who began 
competing in ballroom dance in 1998, at the age of ten years old. The petitioner states that the 
beneficiary "has taught at well-respected schools throughout Russia." The petitioner's agreement 
with the beneficiary indicates that he will be employed in the United States as a dance instructor 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
and a competitive dancer; In addition, the testimonial evidence provided indicates that the 
beneficiary is seeking to coach and compete 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. J.N.S., 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 ability 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. 
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.P.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set 
forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). In denying the petition, the acting director determined that the 
evidence submitted meets none of these 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.P.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. 
While the petitioner has submitted copies of various award certificates the beneficiary received while 
competing in ballroom dance competitions in Russia, the petitioner has neither claimed nor provided 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
evidence that any of these awards are comparable to the types of significant national or international 
awards or prizes listed as examples in the regulation. Without documentation to provide additional 
context regarding the beneficiary's awards within the scope of his occupation, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary's awards in the DanceSport field are regarded as comparable 
to, for example, an Academy award in the arts. It is the petitioner's burden to establish how the 
submitted evidence establishes eligibility under the regulatory criterion. The acting director 
determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence to satisfy this criterion, and the petitioner raises 
no objection to this finding on appeal. 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 for him for 0-1 statusunder 8 C.F.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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The mere fact that the petitioner has 
submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg 41818, 41820 
(August 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 petition pursuant to the preponderance 
of the evidence standard, USCIS 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). We will address these criteria below.1 
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 acting director determined that the petitioner's evidence does not satisfy the evidentiary criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). The acting director acknowledged that the beneficiary has 
participated in various competitive events, but found the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
that he 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 
1
As noted by the acting director in the request for evidence (RFE) issued on November 15, 2013, the 
petitioner has not consistently identified and articulated under which regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) it is claiming eligibility. For example, in the petitioner's initial letter in support of the 
petition, the petitioner characterized some of the submitted evidence under regulatory criteria found at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), relating to aliens of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics. Specifically, the petitioner indicated it was submitting evidence of "awards for 
excellence in the field ofballroom dance" consistentwith 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J) (receipt of nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence), and "memberships in associations in his field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members"), consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iiiXB)(2) 
(memberships in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of their members). 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, 286 Fed. Appx. 963 (91h Cir. 
July 10, 2008). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
performed have a distinguished reputation. In addition, the acting director noted that "there is no 
evidence of 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 noted by the acting director, the petitioner has submitted none of this documentary evidence and 
thus 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 
ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Even if the petitioner had established the distinguished reputation of the DanceSport 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. 
Also on appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's "skills, abilities, experience, expertise, 
presence and leadership have greatly assisted [the petitioner] and the dance industry in the United 
States to move forward." The petitioner's general assertions that the beneficiary will play a leading 
role for dance in the United States are similarly unpersuasive. 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. Broad and unsupported claims that the beneficiary will 
elevate the competition level in the sport as a whole merely by entering events as a dancer or that he 
will play a leading role in a specific production or event by training the petitioner's students are not 
persuasive. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the petitioner's assertions will not 
satisfy its burden of proof. 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.) 
In addition, the acting director noted that the petitioner provided evidence related to many dance 
competitions promoted by the to be held in 
various U.S. cities in the upcoming years. The petitioner submitted background information 
regarding the upcoming U.S. events from the websites of the event sponsors. However, 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 these productions or events. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 
The acting director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
petitioner did not contest the findings of the acting director for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty 
Gen., 401 P.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) (findingthe plaintiffs claims to be abandoned 
as he failed to raise them on appeal). Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
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 acting director determined that the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary 
meets the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
For the reasons discussed above with respect to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l), the 
beneficiary's receipt of awards in athletic competitions cannot be considered to be equivalent to 
having performed in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. 
With respect to the beneficiary's prior role for organizations or establishments in Russia, the 
petitioner has submitted a translation of a letter of recommendation from a 
professional dancer and the beneficiary's former teacher in the Russian Federation. The petitioner did 
not submit the original foreign language document. Thus, the translation has no probative value. 
Regardless, the letter does not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. Ms. indicates 
that in 2003 the beneficiary was a soloist for a where he "performed a 
solo presentation in many theme concerts during the time when ' was touring several 
cities in Russia, Egypt and Turkey with a very successful dance show program. Local reviews 
described [the beneficiary] as a great performer with authentic demonstrations of the dancing roles he 
portrayed." The petitioner submitted a promotional poster for ' 
production of' ' indicating that the beneficiary was a soloist in the production. Ms. 
also indicates that "[i]n 2005, [the beneficiary] pursued professional coaching with children 
and adults. As a result, his students demonstrated high dancing level during competitive events." Ms. 
letter does not refer to the reputation of • and the petitioner 
submitted no evidence regarding the reputation of as a company and that 
is 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 of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190.) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
President of the states that the beneficiary "was 
invited to teach at my dance studio in Moscow on several occasions." Mr. _ states that the 
beneficiary "was a very gifted teacher. He easily establishes a strong working relationship and 
transfers his immense knowledge of technique and artistry effectively to his students. His coaching 
has benefitted many dancers across our country." This conclusory letter does not explain how the 
petitioner has influenced the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, 
Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The petitioner also submitted a foreign language original and translation of a letter from Ms. 
Director of the The petitioner submitted only a blanket 
certification for the "attached documents." The January 10, 2011 certification does not list the 
translations it purports to certify or even name the beneficiary. Thus, the translation is not properly 
certified as required under 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b )(3) and have little probative value. Regardless, Ms. 
states that the beneficiary "performed many times and give [sic] lessons and master -classes 
in our dancing center 'Maximum.'" She further states that the beneficiary "was a powerful help to the 
development of our youngest dancers of our dancing center which gave high results at city, regional 
and All-Russia competitions." While Ms. attests to the beneficiary's experience as a 
dance sport coach and his success with his young students at the city, regional, and All-Russia 
levels of competition, her letter does not speak to the leading or critical nature of his coaching role 
with the nor does the record contain evidence that this dance club 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
The new testimonial letters the petitioner offers on appeal speak of the critical role the beneficiary 
will play in bringing an international style of ballroom dance to the United States in general, and to 
the petitioning entity's studio specifically. With respect to the beneficiary's offered employment 
as a dancer and dance instructor with the petitioning studio, the petitioner describes the beneficiary 
as being "exceptionally successful for himself and for [the petitioning entity]" in assuming the 
roles of dancer and dance instructor, and that he "has been a critical producer of revenue for [the 
petitioner's] studio, generating 63 percent of our gross income in 2012 and 68 percent in 2013." 
The petitioner further stated that it anticipated "that the beneficiary would continue to be an 
important factor in the [petitioning entity's] ongoing success." The petitioner submitted new 
testimonial letters in an effort to establish that the beneficiary has played "important leadership roles 
within [the petitioning entity's organization" and that "[m]uch time and attention has been given to 
developing business plans in which [the beneficiary] has played and will continue to play a critical 
role." The letters speak of the "critical role" the beneficiary will play as a member of the 
petitioning entity's Outreach and Education committee's "ongoing development of our prototype 
program." 
On the basis of the above, the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence establishing that the 
beneficiary has been employed, and will be employed under the approved petition, in a critical or 
essential capacity at the petitioning entity. The acting director's findings and comments to the 
contrary will be withdrawn. 
While it is not disputed that the beneficiary was employed in a critical or essential capacity for the 
petitioning entity, the petitioner did not establish it is or was a company with a distinguished 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
reputation, as required at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(7). The letters do not speak to the reputation 
of the petitioning entity, 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). 
Further, even if the petitioner had demonstrated its distinguished reputation, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(7) requires evidence that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for "organizations and establishments" that have a 
distinguished reputation, in the plural. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(6) 
only requires a single high salary. When the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o) wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so, as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii)(D) that 
the petitioner must submit a "written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or 
entities." Thus, it can be inferred that the plural in any regulatory criterion has meaning. In a 
different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation? The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for any other organization or establishment of 
distinguished reputation. 
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)(3). 
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 acting director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
petitioner did not contest the findings of the acting director for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 
1228 n. 2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, *9 (finding the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as 
he failed to raise them on appeal). 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)(4). 
2 
See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
The petitioner has described the beneficiary as "a world-renowned ballroom dancer who has been 
able to achieve and sustain international acclaim within his field" and an "internationally 
acclaimed Ballroom Dancer." 
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, as well as copies of the beneficiary's awards received at 
DanceSport 
competitions between 1998 and 2007. 
The petitioner provided a letter dated October 11, 2013, from an international 
champion in ballroom dance. Ms. states that she knows the beneficiary personally. She 
states that the beneficiary's "ongoing work as a coach and teacher marks him as one of the most 
influential contributors in the industry" and that the beneficiary "has raised the standard of dance 
in the United States." 
The petitioner also submitted letters from President of and 
President of stating that the beneficiary is well known to them 
"in the industry for several years" as an excellent ballroom dancer, coach/trainer and competitor. 
Ms. _ . Mr. and Mr. state that they have had the opportunity to know the 
beneficiary and have been continually impressed with his performances and successes on the 
competitive floor. They state that the beneficiary's competitions and titles are very highly 
regarded and well deserved. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from a dance champion and coach, stating 
that he would consider the beneficiary to be one of the most talented dancers he has ever seen. 
President of and a ballroom dance competitor, states that 
she has "examined and followed the career of [the beneficiary] and believe[s] his talents and skills 
are exceptional." She states that his achievements include "his performance at .1 events 
including the " She also states, "[the 
beneficiary's involvement as a principal dancer and soloist in , has placed him among 
the very top dancers in one of the largest and most talented countries involved in dancesport in the 
world." 
Executive Vice President of the and a ballroom 
dance champion, states that he is well-acquainted with the beneficiary. Mr. states that the 
beneficiary "is a strong, powerful and dominating force on the floor, and his technique is 
superior." He states that the beneficiary's abilities as a dancesport theatrical artist "clearly mark 
him as exceptional and to be an important influence in the industry." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
a professional ballroom dance coach, states that the beneficiary "achieved 
Championship Status in his country, Russia" and "participated in numerous Ballroom Dance Show 
events as a performer." He refers to the beneficiary's first place finish in a junior competition in 
Russia in 2000, at the age of twelve years old, and the beneficiary's role as a soloist in the 
The petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from President of Mr. 
describes the beneficiary as "a high level dance professional who has been recruited by 
[the petitioning entity] - one of our largest affiliated member organizations. We believe his 
presence in the United States has been and will continue to be beneficial to achieve ... high 
standards for dance in general." 
President of the describes the beneficiary as "a leading 
dancesport professional" and "a very highly regarded member of the dancesport industry." He 
states that the beneficiary, as a competitor in Russia, has been "clearly an exceptional dancer, with 
many excellent performances on the competitive dance floor." 
The petitioner also submitted several letters from the beneficiary's colleagues in DanceSport, 
including two letters from , a professional ballroom dancer and trainer. Mr. 
. states that he has known the beneficiary for many years and that "[t]hroughout his 
career, [the beneficiary] has always achieved the top in his category." He describes the 
beneficiary's 
talent as a "truly exceptional" ballroom dancer. 
a ballroom dance champion, states that he has worked with the beneficiary and has 
been "continuously impressed with [the beneficiary], from his performances at international 
championships, especially the - and to his exhibition performances as 
principal dancer with . 'He describes the beneficiary's talent as "exceptional." 
The petitioner submitted the above-referenced letter from a professional dancer 
and the beneficiary's former teacher in Russia. As discussed above, the petitioner did not submit the 
original foreign language copy of this letter; thus, the translation has no probative value. Regardless, 
she states that the beneficiary started his dancing career at her studio at the age of eight. As noted 
above, Ms. indicates that in 2003 the beneficiary was a soloist for 
where he "performed a solo presentation in many theme concerts during the time when ' 
was touring several cities in Russia, Egypt and Turkey with a very successful dance show program. 
Local reviews described , as a great performer with authentic demonstrations of the dancing 
roles he portrayed." The petitioner submitted a promotional poster for ' 
production of' indicating that the beneficiary was a soloist in the production. 
a Russian dance champion, states that he has known the beneficiary for seven 
years, and that the beneficiary "was always among the best dancers at all of the competitions that 
he ever attended." The only certification of the translation of this letter is the blanket certification 
discussed above that does not list the translation it is certifying or even the beneficiary's name. 
Thus, Mr. letter has little probative value. Regardless, he refers to additional competition 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
results which he claims the beneficiary achieved in Russia in 2008 and 2009. The petitioner has 
not submitted any evidence pertaining to these competitions, therefore, they will not be further 
considered. 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.) 
a Russian dance champion, states he has known the beneficiary since 2001, 
and describes the beneficiary as "one of the best dancer [sic] in the 
The etitioner submitted the above-referenced letter from Director of the DanceSport 
club As noted above, Ms. states that the beneficiary "performed many times 
and give [sic] lessons and master-classes in our dancing center ' " She states that the 
beneficiary "was a powerful help to the development of our youngest dancers of our dancing center 
which gave high results at city, regional and All-Russia competitions." 
The petitioner also submitted the above-referenced letter from President of the 
He states that he has known the beneficiary since the beneficiary 
began dancing. He also indicates that the beneficiary has been a champion of many important and 
major Russian and Open championships. As noted above, Mr. states that the beneficiary 
"was invited to teach at my dance studio in Moscow on several occasions." He states that the 
beneficiary "was a very gifted teacher. He easily establishes a strong working relationship and 
transfers his immense knowledge of technique and artistry effectively to his students. His coaching 
has benefitted many dancers across our country." 
owner of states that he has known the 
beneficiary "for many years as an outstanding dancer in Russia." Mr. states, "I worked 
early on with [the beneficiary], and he very quickly transitioned into an outstanding dancer . 
competing on a national level ... with numerous championships to his credit." 
professional dance champion, describes the beneficiary as "an exceptional dancer 
and ten-dance champion." She states, "[h]aving been trained in the Russian dancesport arena myself, I 
know the caliber of [the beneficiary's] training, and his successes there reflect his exceptional abilities 
and talents." 
Finally, the petitioner submitted letters from those associated with the petitioning entity. 
a Russian ballroom dance champion and the director of one of the petitioning entity's 
dance studios, states that the beneficiary is "an exceptional ballroom dancer who has been able to 
achieve and sustain acclaim and reputation both in the highly competitive environment in his home 
country and nationally. Mr. states that the beneficiary's standard of dance is 
"exceptionally high." 
a ballroom dance champion and the director of one of the petitioning entity's 
dance studios, states that the beneficiary "has been known to me as an excellent ballroom dancer 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
and competitor in the dance industry." Mr. states that he has had the opportunity to see 
the beneficiary in many competitions and has been impressed with him. 
The petitioner has submitted three letters from , President of 
He praises the beneficiary's contributions to the petitioning entity and to the United 
States DanceSport industry in general, based upon the beneficiary's "exceptional abilities, 
expertise and training." He notes that the beneficiary has obtained the highest certification level 
within the petitioning entity. He indicates that the petitioning .entity has "identified [the 
beneficiary] as a leader within our studios to lead a prototype project in developing programs and 
curriculum to engage and prepare the next generation of dancesport participants." He states that 
the beneficiary will also continue to be "a critical and active member of our organization as a 
dancer" and states the beneficiary "will continue to dance, compete and represent his studio and 
our organization with honor and distinction in this key role." He describes the beneficiary as "an 
exceptional dancer and coach, among the most accomplished and respected of dance 
professionals." 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter from a member of the petitioning 
entity's governing board. He states that the beneficiary, "as a member of the Board's Outreach 
and Education committee, has been instrumental in the on-going development of our prototype 
program." Mr. states that the beneficiary "has been central to the success of his home 
studio," and he asserts that the beneficiary's "skills, abilities, experience, expertise, presence and 
leadership have greatly 
assisted [the petitioning entity] and the dance industry in the United States to 
move forward." 
In addition to the testimonial letters, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence of the 
beneficiary's competitive awards. The beneficiary's documented awards included fourteen first 
place awards, two second place awards, five third place awards, two fourth place awards, one fifth 
place award, and two sixth place awards. The petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the 
significance of the awards, all of which appeared to be in city or regional competitions, and all but 
three of which appeared to be in the junior, or age-restricted, categories. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of the beneficiary's Russian competition booklet that 
indicates that the beneficiary is a member of the _ The petitioner 
further submitted documentation that indicates that it is a member of the 
and that the beneficiary has been conferred the status of a certified professional 
competitor by the petitioning entity. 
In the request for evidence, the acting director acknowledged that the petitioner submitted 
testimonial letters from persons who spoke highly of the beneficiary. The acting 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 acting director advised the petitioner that such evidence was inadequate to 
establish that the beneficiary garnered a level of national or international recognition from such 
events. The acting director requested that the petitioner submit evidence from experts in the field 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
to establish that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for his purported 
achievements. Upon review of the petitioner's response, the acting director found that the 
petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for 
achievements in the arts. 
The petitioner also submits on appeal a letter from First Vice President of tht 
who speaks of the critical role the beneficiary will play in bringing an international style of 
ballroom dance to the United States in general and to the petitioning entity's studio, specifically. 
She describes the beneficiary as "an exceptionally accomplished dancer and dance instructor." 
Upon review, the evidence of record supports the acting 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 he 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. !d. 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. !d. at 795; 
see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 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 own former teacher, colleagues 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 carne to be 
aware of the beneficiary's achievements as a dancer or a dance instructor. 
While reference letters can provide useful information about an alien'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 or coach. Those letters that did 
address specific achievements of the beneficiary, such as his three first place finishes in adult 
regional competitions in Russia, his 2artici ation in the development of the petitioner's prototype 
program, and his participation in 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
Regarding the beneficiary's several first-place finishes, the significance of the competitions has not 
been established. While the record supports a finding that the beneficiary was successful in his age 
categories in regional ballroom dance competitions in Russia, the evidence of record does not 
establish that his first place finishes in three adult regional competitions in Russia 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, wwv. , and from the 
website www listing the dates and results of the events, the submitted evidence 
does not establish that the certificates rise to the level of "significant recognition" as required by the 
plain language of the regulatory criterion. 
Similarly, the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary's participation in 
at the age of fifteen years old, constitutes a "significant recognition for 
achievements from organizations in the field" pursuant to the plain language of the criterion. 
Ms. has emphasized that Russia is "one of the largest and most talented countries 
involved in dancesport in the world," and several colleagues of the beneficiary have emphasized 
Russia's impressive standing in the field of dance. However, a petitioner does not establish eligibility 
for 0-1 classification as a dancer simply by demonstrating that a beneficiary has achieved some 
success in Russia. 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 awards the beneficiary 
received in dance competitions of unknown 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 his nonimmigrant petition. As previously discussed, the 
petitioner has not provided documentation that would corroborate the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary has achieved "international acclaim" or even significant recognition. 
Furthermore, regarding the beneficiary's coaching 
experience the petitioner did not submit primary 
evidence of awards won by the beneficiary's student athletes. 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.) 
Overall, while the beneficiary has earned the respect of his colleagues and well-known figures in 
the sport of ballroom dance, the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary 
has received significant recognition for achievements in the field. 
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) that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for 
achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the 
field. 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, 
as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
The sixth and final criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary has either 
commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other substantial remuneration for 
services in relation to others in the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
Assuming that the beneficiary's salary will be $45,000 per year as stated on the Form I-129, the 
petitioner has not established this salary is high in relation to others in the field. As a point of 
comparison, the petitioner submitted an O*Net printout from the Department of Labor, Office of 
Foreign Labor Certification, reflecting that the Level4 prevailing wage for dancers in the petitioner's 
area is $25,792 per year. The petitioner emphasized that the "average top wage is approximately 
$25,000." While the beneficiary's salary exceeds the Level 4 prevailing wage for the petitioner's 
area, the prevailing wage only reflects the average wage paid to all similarly employed workers in the 
same occupation in the same area. 20 C.F.R. § 655.10. The prevailing wage, alone, is insufficient 
to establish whether a salary is high in relation to others in the field, as required by the plain 
language of the regulation. 
In addition, the petitioner claims that USCIS has approved cases with similar salaries. However, 
the petitioner's claim is not persuasive or supported by documentary evidence. While the 
petitioner provided a list of ten names and receipt numbers, the petitioner did not provide any 
documentary evidence to establish that USCIS did, in fact, find eligibility under this criterion and 
approve the petitions based upon the same set of facts present here. In making a determination of the 
beneficiary's eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in the instant record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence 
that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Therefore, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary production 
requirement of three types of evidence. Consequently, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. For this 
additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
IV. Prior Approval 
The record indicates that USCIS previously approved a petition for 0-1 status filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary. The prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of the petitioner's or beneficiary's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). In matters relating to an extension 
of nonimmigrant visa petition validity involving the same petitioner, beneficiary, and underlying 
facts, USCIS will generally give deference to a prior determination of eligibility. However, the mere 
fact that USCIS, by mistake or oversight, approved a visa petition on one occasion does not create an 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
automatic entitlement to the approval of a subsequent petition for renewal of that visa. Royal Siam 
Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with 
a separate record and a separate burden of proof. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8( d). In making a determination 
of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). 
In the present matter, the acting 
director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the 
petitioner did not meet all eligibility requirements for the requested classification. If the previous 
nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same evidence that is contained in the current 
record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the acting director. 
Furthermore, as discussed above, the petitioner has classified the beneficiary's claimed area of 
extraordinary ability as "arts" rather than "athletics." Based on the lack of required evidence of 
eligibility in the current record, we find that the acting director was justified in departing from the 
previous petition approval by denying the instant petition. 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated , merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 
(1988). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, USCIS does not have any authority to 
confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in a subsequent 
petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
V. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or at least 
three criteria 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 
petition may not be approved. 
Furthermore, 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 
petition must be denied for this additional reason. An application or petition that does not comply 
with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by us even if the Service Center does not 
identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). We 
conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. When we deny a petition on 
multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if he shows that we 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
abused our discretion with respect to all of our enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. 
v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.