Date of Decision: November 2, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Ballroom Dancer
Field: Arts
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards:
The petitioner demonstrated that she met the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) by providing evidence of her first-place finishes at the 2015 and 2009 competitions, and her second-place finish at the 2008 competition.
Judging:
The petitioner satisfied the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by participating as a judge at events in Connecticut.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner met the criterion for artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), as demonstrated by her performances as part of a dancing tour and other local exhibitions.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner documented her membership with various organizations, but the evidence did not show that these memberships required outstanding achievements evaluated by recognized experts, thus failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles and screenshots mentioning her as a competitor, but these were not substantial articles about her achievements, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not establish that her contributions had a significant impact on the field of ballroom dancing, thus not meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner presented two treatises, but they lacked full, certified translations and evidence of being peer-reviewed or cited, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner had significant competitive achievements, such as first and second-place finishes in national and international dancesport championships. However, these achievements alone did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The submitted materials included articles and advertisements, but they did not meet the requirement of published material about the petitioner’s work in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s training and teaching accomplishments were noted, but the evidence did not show how these contributions had major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s judging experience was recognized, but it did not include prestigious national or international competitions, and thus did not demonstrate that she is at the top of her field.
Membership in Associations:
The memberships presented did not require outstanding achievements for acceptance, failing to demonstrate that the petitioner’s achievements were recognized by experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The lack of full translations and evidence of impact through citations weakened the petitioner’s case for this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
While the petitioner performed in various exhibitions, there was no evidence of these events being prestigious or of her performances garnering significant attention.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Certificates: Summarized evidence of competitive achievements.
- Judging Invitations: Documentation of participation as a judge at various events.
- Exhibition Flyers: Evidence of performances at various venues.
- Membership Certificates: Proof of memberships in associations.
- Published Articles: Articles and screenshots mentioning the petitioner.
- Scholarly Treatises: Two treatises authored by the petitioner, albeit with incomplete translations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the top of her field. Her achievements, while notable, did not meet the stringent requirements for the EB-1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of her achievements and their impact, or explore other visa options that may be more suitable for her qualifications.
