Dance Instructor

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that they met the criteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) and participation as a judge of the work of others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)). For awards, the evidence presented was deemed regional, local, or employer-based, lacking national or international recognition. For judging, the evidence consisted of a vague letter and an inconsistent website printout, failing to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Even if the Petitioner had met the other two claimed criteria (published material and artistic exhibitions), they would still not have met the minimum three criteria required.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish sustained acclaim, as there was no evidence of performances, awards, or media coverage for over eight years prior to filing. While she met the initial three-criteria threshold, the final merits determination found she was not among the small percentage at the top of the field due to her transition into studying Chinese medicine and the lack of recent professional achievements.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner only met two criteria: receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (i) and participating as a judge of the work of others (iv). The AAO found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence for membership in associations (ii), published materials about her (iii), original contributions of major significance (v), performing in leading or critical roles (viii), or commanding a high salary (ix). The evidence for published material (YouTube videos) lacked proof of major media status, and salary data was not comparable or contemporaneous.