dismissed EB-1A Case: Bodybuilding

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pe- privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imrnigration 
% 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 1 4 2006 
WAC 03 023 55094 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
- I 
i.b s 
G.., r-s 
hobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
,/' Administrative Appeals Office 
'1 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based 
preference visa petition. In connection with the petitioner's Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485), the director served the petitioner with notice of intent to 
revoke the approval of the petition. In a Notice of Revocation, the director ultimately revoked the 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1155, provides that "[tlhe Attorney General [now Secretary, 
Department of Homeland Security], may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
The realization by the director that the petition was approved in error may be good and sufficient cause 
for revoking the approval. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). Regarding the revocation 
on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of Immigration Appeals has 
stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of 
record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of 
proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the 
time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Id. (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
 Finally, the approval of a visa petition vests 
no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in 
the visa application process. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an 
immigrant visa. Id. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the counsel submits a brief that mostly reiterates previous assertions and resubmits 
evidence. 
 Ultimately, we concur with the director. 
 In general, the evidence suggests that the 
petitioner's field is exceedingly small. Ranking at the top of a field of one is meaningless. While the 
petitioner's field is not a field of one, the extremely small number of professional and even amateur 
competitors somewhat diminishes the significance of her accomplishments for the reasons discussed 
below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
Page 3 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifjr the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a bodybuilder. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the 
following criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In 1995, the petitioner, fro, won first place in her class and third overall at the 1995 Clasico 
Mr. Mexico and Ms. Perfection. A flier identifies the uetitioner as Miss Perfeccion 1997. This win 
was covered in the local section of a Queretaro newspaper. In 1998, the petitioner competed at the 1 jth 
Iberoamericano Championships in Guatemala where an article, according to an incomplete translation, 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
reports that she won in her class and overall. The first place plaque, however, does not list the name of 
the winner. The record does not reveal how many women competed in this competition. According to 
the same translation, this win allowed the petitioner to begin competing professionally. Another partial 
translation of an article in an unknown newspaper states the petitioner's win of the "Luchador Olmeca," 
reported to reward the best Mexican sportswoman. 
Once she began competing professionally, the petitioner finished eighth out of ten in the 2000 Jan Tana 
Classic, fourth out of four in her class at the 2001 Extravaganza Pro Bodybuilding sponsored by the 
International Federation of Body Building (IFBB), fourth out of six in her class at the 2001 Jan Tana 
Classic, third out of seven in her class at the 2002 Southwest USA Women's Pro Cup, and sixth out of 
an unknown number in the 2002 Jan Tana Classic. Only the first place finishers qualify to compete at 
Ms. Olympia and the record does not establish whether the second and third place finishers receive an 
actual "award" or "prize." 
The director concluded that the petitioner sought entry as a professional bodybuilder and, thus, must 
demonstrate professional awards or prizes. The director further concluded that one such award was 
insufficient. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has won more than one nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award. Given the extremely limited size of women competing in IFBB 
competitions from around the world and the fact that the petitioner is only the second woman from 
Mexico to turn professional, it is reasonable to question the number of competitors for Miss Perfection 
in Mexico. As stated above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the competitions were even 
covered by any major media in Mexico. The record also lacks evidence regarding the significance of 
the Iberoamericano competition. Not every competition that has competitors from more than one 
country is internationally recognized. The record contains no major media coverage of this event and 
the plaque does not even include the petitioner's name. 
While some references have stressed that the petitioner has finished in the top five or six in IFBB 
competitions, the record reveals that only 23 or 24 women total competed in all professional classes in 
these competitions and only between ten and four competed in the petitioner's class in some 
competitions. The record lacks evidence that large numbers of professionals were eliminated in 
qualifying competitions. Rather, these competitions appear to be the qualifying competitions for the 
Ms. Olympia competition. We note that in Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comrn. 1994), 
the AAO found significant that the alien in that case had an all-around ranking of loth among 10,000 
professional golfers worldwide and 600 in the PGA tours. 
The petitioner has not established that she has won awards or prizes in a field with a significant pool of 
potential competitors. Thus, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrfication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner relies on her professional membership in IFBB to meet this criterion. She submitted 
IFBB's constitution, which provides: 
9.2 Direct Membership: 
Although the IFBB shall not offer direct individual membership, members of National 
Federations, by virtue of their acceptance into the IFBB family, agree to be bound by the 
Constitution or Rules. 
9.3 Membership by Association: 
Athletes, judges, administrators, and other officials become Members of the IFBB by 
virtue of their association with their National Federation pursuant to the terms and 
conditions as set out in the constitution and rules of the respective National Federation. 
The director concluded that since membership in IFBB is based on membership in a National 
Federation, the petitioner must provide evidence of the membership criteria for the National Federation 
of which she is a member. 
On appeal, counsel discusses the prestige of the IFBB and asserts that the petitioner is only one of two 
Mexican women who compete professionally. While a large number of members suggests that an 
association is not exclusive, we will not presume that every association with a small number of 
members is sufficiently exclusive to meet this criterion. The petitioner has still not provided the actual 
membership criteria for the National Federation of which she is a member. Without that information, 
we cannot determine whether that membership requires outstanding achievements as judged by national 
or international experts. 
Supplementary information at 56 Fed. Reg. 60899 (November 29, 1991) provides: 
The Service disagrees that all athletes performing at the major league level should 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. . . . A blanket rule for all major 
league athletes would contravene Congress' intent to reserve this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Thus, the mere fact that the petitioner competes professionally is insufficient to establish her eligibility 
for the classification sought. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. We acknowledge the copious published 
materials in the record. Many of the articles that focus primarily on the petitioner, however, are in a 
foreign language. According to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner must provide complete and certified translations for all foreign 
language documents, including published materials. Some of the translations submitted are incomplete. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit evidence of the circulation for any of the publications that 
have covered her, as opposed to those publications that merely report the results of competitions where 
she competed. Finally, we acknowledge that photographs of the petitioner appear on numerous Internet 
websites devoted to female bodybuilders. The petitioner has not established the significance of these 
sites. National or international exposure is not necessarily the same as acclaim. Thus, the petitioner 
has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's awards and "mere presence" at bodybuilding 
competitions generated "vast amounts of financial backing for the sport." Counsel further asserts that 
the petitioner "will" have an opportunity for sponsorship deals. Finally, counsel quotes from the 
petitioner's reference letters. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that her 
achievements were "original" or contributions of major significance. The director further concluded 
that the record did not support counsel's assertion that bodybuilding had benefited financially from the 
petitioner as there was no evidence that the $20,000 generated by the petitioner's video had gone to the 
sport. Finally, the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the sport had been 
impacted as a result of her activities. On appeal, counsel reiterates previous assertions and fails to 
address the director's concerns. At the end of the brief, counsel cites Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 
(N.D. Ill. 1995) for the proposition that reference letters are often the best evidence of acclaim. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the 
AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising 
within the same district. See Matter of l(-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 71 5 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 71 9. While Muni v. INS, 
891 F. Supp. at 440, does use the language noted by counsel, the alien in that matter was the starting 
defenseman for an NFL Hockey Team that won the Stanley Cup three times. Thus, he was hardly 
just relying on witness letters. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Curon International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
acclaim. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 
209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of bodybuilding, it can be expected that the petitioner would have 
demonstrably impacted the field. 
Some of the letters are from photographers and operators of websites that feature female 
a professional photographer with Physique Art, Inc., asserts that he 
through magazine coverage of her accomplishments and has worked 
with her. 
 Mr. praises the petitioner' 
 but does not assert that the 
petitioner has impacted the field of bodybuilding. 
 another photographer, asserts 
that he visited the petitioner's website and now 
 on his own website dedicated 
to female bodybuilders. He praises the petitioner's ac~om~lishrnents, noting that she placed "in the 
top five" in prestigious competitions. His failure to acknowledge that these competitions had barely 
more than five competitors in the petitioner's class somewhat diminishes the evidentiary value of his 
assertions. Regardless, ~r.does not assert that the petitioner has impacted the field of 
bodybuilding. The remaining photographer letters are similar, further asserting that she is in great 
demand by website photographers. 
petitioner's career and concludes that it is "clear" that the vetitioner is "a role model and a nreat 
u 
motivation to many bodybuilders in Mexico and around the world." ~r.~oints to no facts 
that would support his assertions, such as evidence that the number of amateur female bodybuilders has 
increased by a statistically significant number since the petitioner began competing successfully. 
Producer and Owner of Fast Twitching Video, asserts that his video of the petitioner 
posing in various outfits is one of his "highest grossing titles" that has sold between 800 and 1,000 
copies worldwide and grossed approximately $20,000. We concur with the director that the record 
lacks any evidence that would suggest that the sales of this video, which is not an exercise or fitness 
video, has contributed to the finances of the sport of bodybuilding. 
a founding editor of FLEX Magazine, asserts that he has photographed and interviewed 
the petitioner. 
 He asserts that the prevailing culture in Mexico is not sympathetic to female 
bodybuilders, making her achievements all the more notable. He does not assert, however, that the 
petitioner has impacted the field in Mexico such that more women are now participating in the sport. 
General Manager of Gold's Gym in Venice California, asserts that the petitioner is an 
"outstanding ambassador for the sport." Once again, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner's 
participation in the field has promoted a statistically significant rise in participation by other women. 
Finally, two other female bodybuilders reiterate the petitioner's achievements, with little explanation as 
to how her achievements are "original" or constitutes "contributions of major significance." The 
petitioner also submitted letters from IFBB officials and talent agents providing similar information. 
Even considering the above praise, the petitioner has not established that her ability to remain 
competitive in her field constitutes an original contribution of major significance to her field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Counsel has continuously maintained that the petitioner's appearances at competitions are displays of 
her "art," namely her body. The director rejected this reasoning, asserting that the record establishes 
that the petitioner's field is athletics, not visual arts. The director determined that the competitions 
were competitive sporting events, not artistic exhibitions. On appeal, counsel continues to assert that 
the petitioner's "unique body is her work." Counsel continues: 
The [director] states that Petitioner cannot satisfjl this criterion by changing the wording 
to fit her need since a bodybuilding competition is an athletic event, not an artistic 
exhibition or showcase. The [director] makes these claims however without any proof 
that this is correct. In fact, bodybuilding is distantly related to the medieval carnival feat 
of strength. 
Counsel then concludes that bodybuilding focuses on the classic body that was on display in art during 
the Renaissance. Counsel references a German bodybuilder who "displayed" his mostly nude body and 
sold books and magazines in the 1890's on the shapely body. 
The petitioner submits materials from the Internet Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, 
Transgender and Queer Culture discussing the emergence of bodybuilding as "entertainment." The 
article notes the display of bodybuilders at carnivals. 
 The article concludes by discussing the 
emergence of bodybuilding as a sport. The article notes that in bodybuilding sports competitions, the 
contestants lift weights off stage and the "show" was the "pump" derived from the exercise of muscle. 
The plain language of the regulation references "artistic exhibitions or showcases." The director's 
decision relies on this unambiguous language. We reject counsel's implication that the director must 
offer "proof' in order to rely on this language. Rather, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate why 
we should deviate from the plain language of the regulation. 
We are not persuaded that the inclusion of bodybuilders at carnivals transforms the petitioner's sport 
into an art. Moreover, just as every artist able to make a living in her field must display her work at 
some level, professional bodybuilders must compete in order to make a living in their field. The 
petitioner has not established that her participation in competitions compares to the exclusive 
showcases of an artist's work that is contemplated by this regulation for visual artists. 
Significantly, the statute requires the submission of extensive evidence. The regulations require that an 
alien meet three separate criteria. These requirements would be meaningless if we concluded that the 
petitioner's participation in professional competitions constitutes awards, exclusive memberships, 
original contributions of major significance and artistic displays as urged by counsel. 
Ultimately, we concur with the director that the petitioner's entry into bodybuilding competitions 
cannot be considered equivalent to exclusive showcases of a visual artist's work. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
While the petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion, we note the submission of evidence that 
the petitioner appears in a Fast Twitching Video production, "The [petitioner's name] Video." The 
cover for the video does not suggest that it is a fitness video. Rather, the petitioner merely poses in 
various outfits. As stated above, ~r.asserts that the petitioner's video is one of his highest 
grossing titles, has sold between 800 and 1,000 copies and has generated $20,000 in sales. The director 
noted the lack of official sales data to support M assertions. Counsel does not respond to this 
concern on appeal. We concur with the director that sales of between 800 and 1,000 worldwide are not 
indicative of commercial success. Regardless, the petitioner is an athlete, not a performing artist. 
Thus, it is not clear that this criterion is applicable to her field. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
competitive athlete to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a bodybuilder, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.