dismissed O-1B Case: Dancesport

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 7. 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a dance studio. seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i). 8 lJ.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(0){i). This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant visas available to foreign 
nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director, California Service Center. denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is primarily involved in a creative activity or 
endeavor. such that he can be classified as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in the arts. The 
Director further concluded that the exhibits did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements applicable to 
foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the arts. pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) (a 
significant national or international prize or award) or (B) (at least three of six possible forms of 
documentation). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeaL the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director erred in detennining that the Beneficiary is not eligible for the 
classification sought. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary 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 vvho 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) defines, in pertinent part: .. Arts 
includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as. but not limited to. tine arts. visual arts. 
culinary arts, and performing arts... The arts have different a different standard and evidentiary 
Matter (?f B-C-
criteria than athletics. 1 Section 101 (a)( 46) of the Act states that the term '"extraordinary ability .. means. 
for purposes of section 101(a)( 15)(0)(i). in the case of the arts. distinction. Pursuant to the definition at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) pertaining to foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
""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 remmned, leading. or well-kno\\n in the field of arts. In contrast. this regulation defines 
extraordinary ability in the field of science. education. business. or athletics as a level of expertise 
indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) sets forth the evidentiary criteria to establish a 
beneficiary's prominence in his or her field of endeavor within the arts.2 First a petitioner can 
provide a one-time achievement (that is. a significant national or international award). If the 
petitioner does not document such an achievement. then a petitioner must include sufficient 
qualifying exhibits that satisfy at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J)-(6). If the petitioner shows that 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 demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility. 
The submission of documents relating to at least three criteria does not. in and of itself: establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 5,'ee 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 ... 
Matter l?l Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). That decision explains that. pursuant to 
the preponderance of the evidence standard, we '"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 ... !d. 
Further. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii) sets forth evidence that must accompany 
petitions tor 0 foreign nationals, which includes documentation relating to the tenns of the proposed 
employment and the nature of the activities and events in which the beneficiary \Viii participate. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. and supporting 
documentation. seeking to employ the Beneficiary as a DanceSport (competitive ballroom dancing) 
professional tor a period of three years. The record shows that the Beneficiary began competing in 
1 See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818. 41819 (Aug. 15, 1994 ); 13 7 Con g. Rec. S 18242. 1824 7 (daily ed .. Nov. 26. 1991) (comparing 
and discussing the ··distinction"' standard for the arts). 
2 The evidentiary criteria for an individual of extraordinary ability in the fields of science. education. business or athletics 
are set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-C-
ballroom dance in Russia, his native country, in 1998 at the age of years old, and that he has 
competed in numerous nationaL regionaL and municipal DanceSport competitions. He received the 
designation as a and certification to teach Latin American and Standard 
Ballroom dance from the m England. 
In its initial letter, the Petitioner describes the Beneficiary as ··a world-renowned competitive 
professional ballroom dancer and teacher.·· and his duties in the proffered position as '·to train our 
students and professionals and to represent us in national and international danccsport 
championships." The Petitioner's agreement with the Beneficiary states that he will be employed in 
the United States as a dance instructor and a competitive dancer. The testimonial evidence provided 
also indicates that the Beneficiary is seeking to coach and compete in the United States. The initial 
submission included an itinerary for the Beneficiary showing annual DanceSport competitions 
throughout the United States sponsored 
by the in 
which it is anticipated that the Beneficiary will compete between January 2015 and December 2017. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Beneficiary is not engaged in the field of arts and 
that the Petitioner's submissions did not satisf)r the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or any of the six categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l)-(6). In its 
appeaL the Petitioner otlers a brief and additional items and maintains that the Director erred in 
determining that the record did not establish the Beneficiary"s eligibility for the requested 
classification. This decision will address whether the Petitioner properly filed the petition under the 
0-1 B at1s classi lication, and whether the Beneficiary meets three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). We will fhrther examine whether the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
Section 10l(a)(15)(0)~ 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A). After careful review ofthe record and lor the 
reasons discussed herein. we conclude that the Beneficiary 
is not eligible tor the classification sought. 
B. Beneficiary's Area of Extraordinary Ability 
While dancers in stage. film. and television productions are considered performing artists for the 
purposes of this classification. 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 International Olympic Committee 
(IOC) 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 World DanccSport 
Federation (WDSF), formerly the IDSF. has been designated as the world governing body of the 
sport. The recognition of DanceSport by the IOC is a clear indication that DanceSport has evolved 
into an acknowledged form of athletic competition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an advisory letter from national vice president of 
the 
which describes as "the competitive version of artistic ballroom dancing." 
letter does not mention the Beneficiary by name or reference any of his duties in the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-C-
proffered position. Rather, he characterizes his letter as suggesting "guidelines for preparing and 
adjudicating petitions tor 0-1 A Dance Athletes and 0-1 B Dance Artists." Based in part on his review 
of several unpublished United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decisions. he 
concludes that '·determination should come down to whether the position is primarily that of 
competition by the [ B]eneticiary. which would entail the 0-1 A standard or. as would be appropriate tor 
0-1 B designation. the primary duties and most of the time devoted to coaching. choreography. or non­
competition perfonning.'' Here, a representative of the relevant oversight body interprets the regulator y 
criteria tor the 0-1 B classification in the performing arts as not applicable to the competitive 
DanceSport industry. which he refers to as a "sport" and its practitioners as "athletes." We note that 
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. USClS is 
ultimately responsible for making the tina! determination regarding an individual's eligibility t()r the 
benefit sought. /d.In addition. although we acknowledge affirmation that 
DanceSpont involves a degree of artistry and creativity. the same can also be said f()r many other 
competitive sports. 
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 an "athlete" 
or as an ·'artist.'' Here. as the Beneficiary is clearly coming to the United States to participate in or 
train others tor 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). 
As noted previously, the regulations clearly prescribe different evidentiary criteria and standards of 
review tor foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the arts as opposed to those of extraordinary 
ability in athletics. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be 
highly restrictive tor foreign nationals in the tields 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 tor the arts). 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. In sum. we agree with the 
Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary is not engaged in the field of arts and that the Petitioner 
has not sought the correct 0- 1 visa classification tor the Beneficiary. Accordingly. the petition will 
be denied for this reason. 
C. Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Requested Classification 
The Director noted that the Petitioner maintained eligibility under the evidentiary criteria tor toreign 
nationals of extraordinary ability in the arts at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), and therefore reviewed the 
petition under these criteria. We find that the Director appropriately reviewed the petition according 
to the classification requested on the Form 1-129. USCIS will only consider the visa classification 
4 
Matter of B-C-
that a petitioner annotates on the petition. The Ninth Circuit has determined that once USCIS 
concludes that a foreign national is not eligible for the specifically requested classification, the 
agency is not required to consider. sua .\ponte. whether the foreign national is eligible for an alternate 
classification. Brazil Quality Stones, Inc., v. Cherh?{!; Slip Copy. 2008 WL 2743927 (9th Cir. July 
10, 2008). Therefore. the next 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 ofthe six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
In denying the petition. the Director determined that the Petitioner did not claim to meet the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) and did not meet any of the six criteria set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 3 Regarding the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). (3). and 
(5). the Director discussed the submitted evidence and f(mnd that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary met these criteria. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not claimed 
that the Beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). On appeal. the Petitioner 
does not contest the findings of the Director for these criteria or otTer additional arguments. Instead. 
the Petitioner provides evidence related to two of the six criteria. set forth at C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(/) and (6). We will address these two criteria below. After careful review. the 
evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial. 
Evidence that the alien has pel:formed and will perfhrm, services as a lead or starrinx 
participant in productions or events which have a distinxuished 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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J). The Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary has participated in 
various competitive events. but found the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he 
perfmmed 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 
perfmmed have a distinguished reputation. In addition. the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
submit 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 Director. the Petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence to supp011 its conclusion 
-'Although not mentioned by the Director, the Petitioner has not consistently identified and articulated the regulatory criteria 
under which it is claiming eligibility. For example. in its initial letter it characterized the submitted evidence under 
regulatory criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), relating to foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the fields of 
science, education, business, or athletics. Specifically, the Petitioner indicated it was submitting evidence of "major national 
and international awards for excellence in the field of ballroom dance" consistent with 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(/) 
(receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence), "memberships in associations in [the 
Beneficiary's] field of endeavor which require outstanding achievements of their members" consistent with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(8)(2) (memberships in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of their members). 
and "contributions of major significance in the field" consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3 )(iii)(8)(5) (original scientific. 
scholarly. or business-related contributions of major significance in the field). 
5 
Matter (~f B-C-
that the Beneficiary's finishes at competitive DanceSport events have been tantamount to providing 
services as a lead or starring participant in productions with a distinguished reputation. 
In addition. as mentioned by the Director. 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. Further. the Director noted that the 
record contains documentation related to many upcoming dance competitions to be held in various U.S. 
cities. The Petitioner submitted background infonnation regarding those events from the websites of 
the event sponsors. However. it has not provided adequate documentation in the fom1 of critical 
reviews. advertisements. publicity releases. publications. contracts or endorsements to show that the 
Beneficiary would perform services as a lead or stmTing participant in those productions or events. 
On appeal. the Petitioner attests to the critical role the Beneficiary will play in bringing an 
international style of ballroom dance to the United States in general and to the Petitioner"s studio 
specifically. It submits additional materials pertaining to the professional certifications and 
competitive achievements of leading members of its studio. The Petitioner" s general affirmations that 
the Beneficiary will play a leading role for it and f()r dance in the United States are insunicient to meet 
this criterion. 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 statements that the Beneficiary will elevate the competition level in the sport as a \vhole 
merely by enteting events as a dancer. or that he \Vill play a leading role in a specific production or 
event by training the Petitioner's students do not satisfy the plain language of the regulation. In 
addition, statements made without supporting documentary evidence are of limited probative value 
and are not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Afaller (?f 
S(?f!ici. 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter (?{Treasure Crqji (?fCaf(/'ornia. 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Based on the foregoing. the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
Eridence that the alien has either commanded a high salm)' or will command a hiKh 
safwy or other substantial remunerationfhr services in relation to others in the field as 
evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence docs not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). The record does not contain any documentation regarding the 
Beneficiary's past earnings. Assuming that the Beneficiary's annual salary will be $55.000 per year 
as stated on the Form 1-129. we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
established this salary is high in relation to others in the field. Initially the Petitioner submitted. as a 
point of comparison. an O*Net printout from the Department of Labor. 01lice of Foreign Labor 
Certification. ret1ecting that the Level 4 prevailing wage for dancers in the Petitioner's geographic area 
is $48.942 per year. While the Beneficiary's salary exceeds the Level 4 prevailing wage for the 
Petitioner"s area. the prevailing wage only ret1ects the awraKe wage paid to all similarly employed 
workers in the smne occupation in the smne area. 20 C.F.R. § 655.10. The prevailing wage. alone. is 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-C-
insufficient to establish whether a salary is high in relation to others in the field, as required by the 
plain language ofthe regulation. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from 
www.hls.gov regarding 2013 Occupational Employment and Wages. reflecting that the 90111 
percentile of dance rs earned an hourly wage of $34.22. or approximately $71.178 per year. The 
Petitioner also provided a screenshot hom showing that the average salary l()r a 
dancer in the Petitioner" s area is $52.000. 
As noted by the Director. the Bencliciary"s duties will also include dance coaching /instructi on. The 
Petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence comparing his salary to others with compa rable 
job responsibilities. Even when compared to the salaries of dancers. the Petitioner has not shown the 
proposed salary on the Fonn I -129 constitutes a high salary consistent with the plain language of the 
regulation. The salary screenshots mentioned above only provided average and median salary data 
f(x dancers and did not identify the high end salaries ti.Jr those performing work vvith similar 
responsibilities as the Beneficiary. The Petitioner must submit evidence shovving that the 
Beneficiary has earned or will earn a high salary. not a salary that is above the amount paid 10 the 
majority of fully competent workers. 
Further, although not mentioned by the Director , according to the Petitioner's proposed employm ent 
agreement the Beneficiary will be paid .. $45 per hour based on lessons taught plus appropriate 
commissions, .. which equates to approximately $93.600 per year. The inconsistency between the wage 
stated on Form 1-129 and that in the employment agreement prevents us from detem1ining the 
Beneficiary's salary and whether it is considered high in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal , the Petitioner claims that USCIS has approved cases with similar salaries to that of the 
proffered position. While the Petitioner provided a list of nine names and receipt numbers, it did not 
provide any documentary evidence to establish that USCIS did. in tact. find eligibility under this 
criterion and approve the petitions based upon the same set of facts present here. In making a 
detern1ination of the Beneficiary"s eligibility, USClS is limited to the information contained in the 
instant record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(16)(ii). Upon review. the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iv)(B )( 6). 
Finally. as noted previously. in order to establish eligibility for 0- I classification as a foreign 
national of extra ordinar v abilitv in the ticld of arts . the Petitioner must establish the Beneliciar v· s "' . . 
eligibility under at least three ofthe six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R . ~ 214.2(o)(3)(iv) (B). On appeal. 
the Petitioner only asse11s the Beneficiary's eligibility under two criteria. at 8 C.F.R. 
§~ 2 I 4.2( o )(3 )(iv)(B)(l) and ( 6). Therefore. even if the Petitioner \Vere able to establi sh the 
Beneficiary's eligibility under those criteria. the Petitioner would not satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
In sum, 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)(i v)(B). Consequently. the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible tor cla<;silication as a foreign national with 
extraordinary ability in the arts. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-C-
D. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability in the United States 
Finally. although not mentioned by the Director, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. Section 
101(a)(l5)(0): 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A). 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States to 
perform both as a professional dance instructor and a professional dancer.4 As described in the 
Petitioner's initial letter. the Beneficiary's proposed employment is to teach •·all levels of students 
including beginners. intermediate, advanced students as well as coach dance teachers:· The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary .. will represent fits] studio in national and international 
ballroom competitions:· Since the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will be employed as both a 
dance instructor as well as a competitive ballroom dancer. the Petitioner must establish that the 
Beneficiary has extraordinary ability in both areas. 
While a professional dancer and a dance instructor certainly share knowledge of dance. the tvvo rely 
on very different sets of basic skills. Thus. dance performance 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. l.N.S' .. 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (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. 
This office has recognized that there exists a nexus between performing as a competitive athlete and 
teaching as an athletic coach. To assume that every athlete's area of expertise includes teaching or 
instruction, however. would be too speculative. To resolve this issue. the following balance is 
4 The Petitioner has provided inconsistent evidence regarding the nature of the Benefici ary' s proposed employ ment in 
the United States. For instance. the Petitioner's proposed employment agreement with the Beneficiary specificall y states 
that he will be working as a dance instructor. eight hours a day. Monday through Friday. with additional Saturday 
instruction. The employment agreement also states vaguely that the Beneficiary would be perfonning unspec ified 
"'services on certain weekends that may involve competitions and special events:· Concurrently, the Petitioner indicates 
that the Beneficiary will be predominantly employed as a competitive ballroom dancer . The Petitioner submitted a list of 
future competitions consisting of all calendar events from the and stated that it exp ects the Benefici ary will 
participate as a DanceS port professional ·•in many. if not all. of these [listed] events: · Considering that calendar 
indicates that competitions are held every couple of days, or even on the same days. in variou s location s throu ghout the 
United States . it would be impossible tor the Beneficiary to compete in "'many, if not all .. of the listed competition s as a 
dancer, while concuJTently working as a full-time dance instructor for the Petitioner" s studio. This ambi guity raises 
some doubt regarding the actual nature of the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States . 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter (?f B-C-
appropriate. In a case where an alien has clearly achieved distinction as an 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. 
Here, however, while the Petitioner has discussed and submitted evidence pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's ability as a professional dancer. there is little evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's 
ability as a dance instructor. The record contains the Beneficiary's above-mentioned teaching 
certifications. Several of the submitted testimonial letters describe the Beneficiary as an 
"exceptional,'' ''gifted:' or ''talented'' coach/teacher/trainer/instructor, and a letter from 
Executive Director of the France. states that the 
Beneficiary '·has produced several strong competitive students, as well as coaching many of the 
professional couples in the Ukraine and Russia.'' The record does not contain evidence establishing 
the Beneficiary's past coach-athlete relationship with any successful athletes, such as the names of 
any athletes the Beneficiary coached and evidence that they were national or international 
champions or medalists. The Petitioner has. therefore. not established that the Beneficiary's area of 
extraordinary ability includes dance instruction . Consequently, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary will be coming to the United States to continue work in his area of extraordinary 
ability. 
III. 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). therefore. it has not established that the Beneficiary is 
eligible for classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in the m1s 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. Lastly. the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. as it has not submitted evidence establishing that 
the Beneficiary's area of extraordinary ability includes dance instruction. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis tor the decision. In visa petition proceedings. it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility tor the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361: lvfall er (?f' 
Otiende. 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here. that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (dB-C-, ID# 16671 (AAO June 7, 2016) 
9