Date of Decision: October 31, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Ballroom Dance Instructor
Field: Dance Sport
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved, then Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner demonstrated her leading role as a senior trainer at a dance school with a distinguished reputation in the Russian dance sport community. The school received several awards at regional and national dance sport competitions, indicating its prestigious status, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner submitted certificates earned by her students and some awarded directly to her. However, these did not establish that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized or that they were for excellence in the field of dance sport. Without sufficient evidence of national or international recognition, this criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the presidium of a dance sport association. However, the evidence did not establish that this membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. Therefore, this criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Petitioner submitted articles from local newspapers, but there was no evidence that these newspapers qualified as major trade publications or other major media. As such, this criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s teaching methods and contributions, while notable, did not demonstrate major significance or widespread impact in the field of dance sport. This criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
High Salary or Remuneration: The evidence submitted did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner’s earnings were significantly higher than those of others in her field. Incomplete translations and inconsistent salary data further complicated the assessment. This criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The awards and certificates submitted were primarily for her students and did not demonstrate national or international recognition for the Petitioner’s excellence in dance sport.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: The submitted articles were from local newspapers and did not qualify as major media. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate the significance of the publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions, including her teaching methods, were not shown to have a major impact or wide recognition in the field of dance sport.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: The Petitioner’s membership did not meet the criterion as it did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s role as a senior trainer at a distinguished dance school met this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: The evidence did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner’s salary was significantly higher than that of others in the same field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in dance sport.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of dance sport.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner met one of the ten criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of her contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
