dismissed EB-1A Case: Bodybuilding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23133628 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 19, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a bodybuilder, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1 )( A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not fulfill any of the initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets five 
evidentiary criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on International Federation of Bodybuilding 
Fitness Professional League (IFBB Pro League) membership. On appeal, the Petitioner references a 
letter from J-B-M-, president ofIFBB Pro League, who indicated: 
Before becoming an IFBB Pro, a bodybuilder must earn their IFBB Pro Card. Any 
bodybuilder wishing to obtain an IFBB Pro Card must first join the NPC (National 
Physique Committee), which is the largest amateur bodybuilding organization in the 
United States and awards IFBB Pro Cards to the winners of their best competitors. 
Amateur bodybuilding athletes compete in regional competitions sanctioned by the 
NPC, the only amateur organization recognized by the IFBB Pro League. 
When a bodybuilder earns or has a high ranking, he or she receives an invitation to 
compete in their country's national professional qualification championship that year. 
2 
Athletes winning each category in the National Pro Qualifier Championships receives 
the right to apply for the IFBB Pro Card and become a member of the IFBB PRO 
LEAGUE to compete in professional championships. 
In addition, the Petitioner cites to an expert opinion letter from J-A-, program director at 
Community College, who stated: 
In order to become an IFBB Pro, a bodybuilder must first earn his or her IFBB Pro 
Card. A bodybuilder looking to do this must first win a regional contest weight class. 
When a bodybuilder wins or places highly, he or she earns an invite to compete at his 
or her country's National Championships contest for that year. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on 
being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in 
the field for which classification is sought. 1 According to the letters discussed above, "[ a ]hletes 
winning each category in the National Pro Qualifier Championships receives the right to apply for the 
IFBB Pro Card and become a member of the IFBB PRO LEAGUE to compete in professional 
championships," and"[ w ]hen a bodybuilder wins or places highly, he or she earns an invite to compete 
at his or her country's National Championships contest for that year." 2 Here, recognized national or 
international experts do not judge outstanding achievements for membership with IFBB Pro League. 
Rather, bodybuilders receive an invite when they receive or have a high ranking or win or place highly; 
national or international experts do not judge a bodybuilder's achievements to determine their 
outstanding nature, nor does the IFBB Pro League requires outstanding achievements as a requisite 
for membership. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not show how winning a regional contest weight 
class is tantamount to an outstanding achievement. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on 1 7 internet items and two interviews. In 
order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 3 In our evaluation, we will first determine whether the evidence reflects published 
material about the Petitioner relating to her work in the field, which contains the required title, date, 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing 
an example of admission to membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a foreign associate that requires 
individuals to be nominated by an academy member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the 
individual's distinguished achievements in original research). 
2 Although the Petitioner provided IFBB' s constitution and bylaws, they do not mention the IFBB Pro League, nor do they 
support the letters' claims. 
3 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
3 
and author. If the record supports those regulatory requirements, we will then decide whether 
professional or major trade publications or other major media published those materials. 
As it relates to the internet material, the Petitioner did not include the dates for 4 of the items and the 
authors for 14 of them. Furthermore, only 6 of the items reflect published material about the Petitioner 
relating to her work. In fact, the majority of the items either make no mention of the Petitioner, contain 
only photographs without any written material, or simply list the Petitioner as a competitor or finisher 
without any published material about her. Moreover, the items reflect press coverage of bodybuilding 
events and competitions rather than about the Petitioner. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-
820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are 
not about the actor). 
Thus, the record shows that the Petitioner provided two items reflecting published material about her 
relating her work, as well as containing the regulatory requirement of the titles, dates, and authors of 
the material -I ltv andl lblog. Regarding! ltv, the Petitioner did not 
attach any information establishing that the website qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. 4 As it pertains tol lblog, the Petitioner submitted data 
from SimilarWeb for I However, the Petitioner did not submit information relating to 
I blog, the actual website that posted the article. Notwithstanding, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the significance of the SimilarWeb figures (i.e., global ranking of 11,543, country ranking 
of 440, and industry ranking of 1,515), showing that the website represents a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. 
Regarding the two interviews, the Petitioner provided a transcript of a television interview from 
News Online posted on Y ouTube and a transcript of a radio interview from I I Podcast 
posted on I I The Petitioner, however, did not include the regulatory required titles, dates, 
and authors of the material. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the specific You Tube 
and I I channels (youtube.com/watch I and I lcom/user-
1 I enjoy standing as professional or 
major trade publications or other major media, nor did the Petitioner offer evidence relating to 
News Online orl IPodcast. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that"[ a ]11 her publications are professional publications because they are 
aimed to a specialized audience (bodybuilding athletes and fans)." However, the Petitioner does not 
reference any evidence to support her assertion. Moreover, the term "profession" shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. See section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. Moreover, 
"profession" means one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry in the occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that her occupation as a bodybuilder falls within the definition of "profession" as defined 
4 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing that evidence of published material in professional or major 
trade publications or in other major media publications about the person should establish that the circulation ( online or in 
print) or viewership is high compared to other statistics and show who the intended audience is, as well as the title, date, 
and author of the material). 
4 
in the law and regulations. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the internet sites and 
interview venues qualify as professional publications. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on a critical role for On 
appeal, the PPetitioner references a letter from W-A-, marketing director and co- founder of On 
and the previously discussed letter from J-A-. According to W-A-: 
Since February 2020, [the Petitioner] joined ourl lteam of sponsored 
athletes. She has produced relevant and valuable content for the company's social 
media. [The Petitioner's] outstanding career and recognition in the bodybuilding field 
has helped our organization to increase tremendously the number of our social media 
followers, which has exponentially helped our organization to gain new customers and 
to skyrocket our sales . 
. . . [The Petitioner] has performed a critical role for our organization, specifically in 
the promotion of our product 
She showed our social media followers and customers thatl I not only 
enhances recovery but also contribute to increase energy and protein synthesis because 
it contains Peak 02, scientifically developed to increase performance and power with 
a proven blend of six natural adaptogens. [The Petitioner] also explained our social 
media followers that I I contains a Hydration Blend to prevent muscle 
breakdown and maintain people's health on check. 
Moreover, [the Petitioner] has played a critical role forl by helping our 
company to increase the sales of the products and She 
explained via Instagram posts that I I provides a high energy thermogenic 
that not only keeps people energized and focused during times of dieting but works to 
increase calorie expenditure (burning), making our customers efforts even more 
effective. 
[The Petitioner] successfully participated in the marketing campaign of our product 
explaining that it works to remove excess water, further enhance calorie bum 
and accelerate results as the finishing touch before a competition, photoshoot, pool 
party, or any other specific event. 
5 
Additionally, [the Petitioner] played a critical role forl lin the promotion 
of our product She explained our social media followers and customers 
that is an all-natural, non-hormonal anabolic formula that aids in gaining 
lean muscle, increasing recovery rate, and increasing nutrient utilization. 
For a critical role, individuals must establish that they have contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a division or 
department of the organization or establishment. 5 W-A-'s letter, however, does not provide specific, 
detailed information explaining how the Petitioner's contributions to I I resulted in 
successful outcomes for the business. Instead, the letter describes the Petitioner's promotional efforts 
without showing how those promotions impacted I While the letter makes the broad 
claim that the Petitioner "helped I Ito rapidly increase our client portfolio, which 
profoundly and positively impacted our sales in the United States," J-A- did not further elaborate and 
articulate how the Petitioner's specific promotional efforts led to the claim of increased client 
portfolios or sales. J-A- did not, for instance, indicate! Isales prior to and after the 
Petitioner's social media promotions to reflect the Petitioner's essential performance onl I 
I !revenue. Without further, thorough information, the general claims in J-A's letter is 
insufficient to demonstrate the critical role that the Petitioner's performed forl 6 
Regarding J-A-'s letter, he simply summarizes and repeats the statements from W-A-'s letter. J-A's 
letter does not offer any new or different information from W-A-'s letter, nor does he establish the 
Petitioner's critical role forl I Moreover, although J-A-'s letter continually asserts that 
the Petitioner performed in a "critical role," the letter does not contain specific, detailed information 
to corroborate its assertions. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
Notwithstanding the above, this regulatory criterion also requires the leading or critical role be for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 7 Although she claims that 
lhas [a] distinguished reputation," the Petitioner does not cite or reference to any 
evidence to support her assertion. Further, while W-A-'s letter provides a brief description and history 
of the company, the letter does not contain any information relating the business' reputation. Nor does 
the record reflect! I enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she fulfills this criterion. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
6 Id. (providing that this is one criterion where letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the 
person's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful to officers in making this determination, so long as the letters 
contained detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the person's role for the organization, 
establishment, division. or department was leading or critical). 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (referencing Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and defining 
"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent person). 
6 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petitions filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108, ajj'd, 905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office 
adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on 
behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another 
immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 
(E.D. La. 2000). 8 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies the criteria relating to membership, published 
material, and leading or critical role. Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for two additional 
criteria on appeal, awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), we 
need not reach these additional grounds because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary 
requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these 
issues. 9 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league 
level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding 
that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) 
( determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). 
See also Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 
(D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published 
theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) ( stating that "[c ]ourts have 
found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in 
Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that 
8 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(3). 
9 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7 
the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record 
does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in 
the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain 
sufficient evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8