Ballroom Dance Teacher

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight regulatory criteria for O-1 extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found insufficient evidence for the judging criterion (lack of specific event participation), original contributions (show lacked major significance proof), critical employment role (events/shows not 'organizations' and roles not proven critical for distinguished entities, and distinguished reputation of entities not established), and high remuneration (salary not high relative to comparable dance instructors, as data was for 'Dancers' and salary was only slightly above average).

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner applied under the 'arts' classification while the beneficiary's role as a competitive dancer-athlete belongs in 'athletics.' Additionally, the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria, only meeting the criterion for significant recognition from experts. Evidence for lead roles and major media coverage was found insufficient or not probative of the regulatory standards.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria for O-1 classification. Specifically, claims for judging work of others were not considered as they were raised for the first time on appeal. Evidence for original contributions of major significance (directing/choreographing a musical show) was deemed insufficient, lacking proof of major impact. Employment in a critical or essential capacity for distinguished organizations (charity sport event, TV show, dance camp) was not established, as the entities' distinguished reputations were not proven, nor was the Beneficiary's role shown to be critical or essential. Finally, the Beneficiary's proposed salary of $60,000 as a dance instructor was not considered 'high' relative to comparable data for dancers, which was also deemed an inappropriate comparison.

The appeal was dismissed primarily because the Petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirement for a written contract or a summary of an oral agreement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B). The provided document was unsigned by the Beneficiary and undated, making it impossible to determine the actual terms and conditions of employment at the time of filing. Other grounds for denial, such as the lack of an itinerary and advisory opinion, were reserved as the contract issue was dispositive.