Date of Decision: December 20, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Ballroom Dancer and Instructor
Field: Performing Arts – Dance
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to establish eligibility.
Criteria Met
None. The petitioner claimed four criteria but failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards for all.
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner submitted evidence of awards won in ballroom dance competitions in the United States and Ukraine. However, the AAO determined that these awards lacked national or international recognition, as many were employer-based, regional, or junior-level competitions without documented prestige in the field. - Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The petitioner provided a letter confirming his participation as a judge in an international dance competition. However, discrepancies in the event’s promotional materials, such as conflicting dates, raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence. Additionally, the AAO found that the letter lacked specific details about the petitioner’s judging activities, such as the number of participants evaluated or the judging criteria used. - Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed eligibility based on articles discussing his work. However, the AAO did not evaluate this criterion, as meeting it would not have affected the outcome of the appeal. - Display of the Petitioner’s Work in Artistic Exhibitions:
The petitioner submitted evidence of participation in artistic performances, but the AAO did not evaluate this criterion, as meeting it would not have changed the final decision.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards Lacked Recognition: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his dance awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
- Judging Evidence Was Unreliable: The petitioner’s judging claims lacked detailed documentation, and inconsistencies in event information reduced the credibility of the evidence.
- No Final Merits Determination Conducted: Since the petitioner did not meet three regulatory criteria, the AAO did not proceed with a final merits determination.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Evidence: Certificates and event results lacking evidence of national or international recognition.
Judging Evidence: Letter confirming participation as a judge, with inconsistencies in event documentation.
Published Material: Articles discussing the petitioner’s career, not evaluated by the AAO.
Exhibition Evidence: Proof of participation in artistic performances, not evaluated by the AAO.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or position the petitioner among the very top of the field.
