Dance: performance and instruction
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish the awards or judging criteria, so he could not reach three of the ten criteria.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A professional dancer and dance instructor appealed after the Nebraska Service Center Director found none of six examined criteria met. The AAO decided only two, awards and judging, because he could not reach three criteria even if he won on the rest. It held that his awards were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized and that a single vague letter and an inconsistent website printout did not establish judging. The earlier O-1 approval changed nothing, and the appeal was dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards | Not met | Therefore, he has not satisfied this criterion. |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not reached | |
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Not met | we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the judging criterion |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not reached | |
| (vii) Display at exhibitions or showcases | Not reached | |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The Director had found none of six criteria satisfied, and on appeal the Petitioner claimed four; the AAO addressed only the awards and judging criteria because winning on both of the others would still not give him three.
- The AAO disagreed with discounting youth-level awards solely for that reason, but the Petitioner never discussed those awards or supplied further evidence of their recognition, and a competition's national scope or large field is not the same as national or international recognition.
- For judging, a single letter lacked names of those judged or dates and was uncorroborated by evaluation records, and the website printout of the event contained inconsistent dates that cast doubt on its reliability.
- A prior O-1 nonimmigrant approval did not preclude denial of the immigrant petition, which is judged on a different standard and a separate record (the O-1 approval was not in this record); the AAO separately reserved the published material and display criteria and made no final merits determination.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976)
- Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- Sunlift Int'l v. Mayorkas, 2021 WL 3111627 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
- Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003)
- IKEA US v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999)
- Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary