dismissed EB-1A Case: Bodybuilding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-M-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG.ll,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a bodybuilding promoter, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form I-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Worker. We dismissed his appeal, and he has filed a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide 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 submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of 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. 1 
1 
See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (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.O. 
Wash. 20 II). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity 
of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0). 
.
Matter of A-M-A-
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. BACKGROUND 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner satisfied one of the regulatory criteria -
judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In addition, we found that the Petitioner did not meet 
these six contested criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), membership under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original contributions under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), artistic display under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and leading or critical 
role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On motion, the Petitioner presents additional documentation 
and argues that he meets eight criteria. 2 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner argues that his additional documentation establishes his eligibility regarding four 
criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, and leading or critical role. As it relates 
to the awards criterion, the Petitioner submits five letters from Iranian bodybuilders 3 who attested to 
their professional achievements and indicated that the Petitioner was their promoter, manager, and 
coach. In addition, the Petitioner provides additional evidence ofthe bodybuilders' various finishes 
and awards. As found in our prior decision, the regulatio·n at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) relates to the 
Petitioner's own receipt of prizes or awards, and the accomplishments of the athletes that he 
promoted, coached, and managed do not qualify for this criterion. The Petitioner otTers the 
following as evidence of his own awards: 
• A certificate from the 
participation in the organization and holding on the 
on 2011," 
• A photograph attached to 
letterhead stating the Petitioner received ' 
and 
• A certificate of merit from the 
for the Petitioner's "active 
in Uzbekistan, 
acknowledging that the Petitioner "has devoted himself to the mastery of the science of 
2 
The Petitioner does not identifY or indicate how the evidence relates to an eighth criterion beyond the seven claimed on 
appeal. 
3 
2 
and 
.
Matter of A-M-A-
bodybuilding & Fitness and has through his untiring effort, helped to adnance [sic] 
bodybuilding & Fitness in his country." 
The Petitioner claims that and "are internationally recognized organization[ s] within the 
and therefore any awards won by the Applicant were within the organization[ s] that 
are nationally and internationally recognized." However, the issue is not the standing of the 
awarding organizations or associations but whether the prizes or awards from those· entities are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
his certificates and medal are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in his field. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that these awards receive 
publicity at a national or international level in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
overcome our finding on this criterion from our previous decision. 
Regarding the published material criterion, the Petitioner presents articles from 
. and 
Although our prior decision noted that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
the author of the published material, the Petitioner does not include the authors of the articles. As 
determined previously, while the articles from and 
represent published material discussing the Petitioner and his work, the other articles relate to 
competitions, listing the bodybuilders' results and only mentioning the Petitioner as the coach or 
promoter without any discussion about him. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet 
this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. 
Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles relating to a show do not pertain to the actor). 
In our previous decision, we found the record did not include sufficient evidence that 
and are professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. On motion, the Petitioner offers a letter from sports journalist, who 
stated that has a print distribution between 14,000 and 22,000. Moreover, the Petitioner 
submits a letter from public relations for who indicated that 
has a weekly circulation of 10,000 to 15,000, and was a weekly magazine that 
interviewed Iranian athletes and actors. The letters, however, do not establish that and 
are professional or major trade publications or other major media. The record 
does not include comparative data to show that the claimed circulation statistics for are 
indicative of a major sports publication. In addition, ·did not provide information, such as 
print distribution or level of popularity, demonstrating that was a professional or 
major trade publication or other major medium. · 
The Petitioner also presents screenshots regarding competitiOns that were posted on 
While there is a phptograph of the Petitioner and a quote from him, the 
screenshots relate to the competitions rather than to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the website is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
3 
.
Matter of A-M-A-
Finally, the Petitioner submits a letter from director manager for 
who stated that is a "(f]amous sports weekly [i]nternational [m]agazine ," 
and the publication interviewed the Petitioner" in 2016. The Petitioner, however, did not 
provide the article, title, date, and author of the published material, and the interview occurred after 
the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Further, without the submission of the article 
itself, the Petitioner has not demonstrated it constituted published material about him relating to his 
work. In addition , the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence , such as circulation 
statistics, to show that is a professional or major trade publication or other major 
medium. For these reasons, the Petitioner's evidence does not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Regarding the original contributions criterion , as indicated 
above, the Petitioner provides letters from 
five Iranian bodybuilders who listed their athletic achievements and identify him as their promoter, 
manager, and coach. Each of the letters state: "I would not Have Accomplished any of The 
Achievements without the direct involvement of [the Petitioner] is equally or more responsible for 
any achievements with the [sic]." While the Petitioner provided screenshots 
and certificates of their various finishes , he did not establish how these achievements are of major 
significance in the field. The evidence does not show the impact of the Petitioner's coaching , 
'Promoting, or managing beyond the individual athletes with whom he worked. See Visinscaia v. 
Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The Petitioner 
also presents participation certificates , a letter thanking him for his "great [j]ob in the 
in Mongolia 2011 & in Uzbekistan 2012," and photographs of himself 
·presenting trophies and medals to bodybuilders. Although the docum entation shows the Petitioner 's 
participation in bodybuilding events , the evidence does not establish that his involvement has been 
of major significance to the field. The Petitioner, for example , did not show that his contributions 
were responsible for making the noted bodybuilding championships significant or major events in 
the field. Accordingly , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this regulatory criterion . 
Relating to the leading or critical role criterion , we previously found that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the 
and have distinguished reputations . The Petitioner submit s 
event information relating to the in 2017, invitations for the 
and to attend vanous events , documentation relating to 
. constitution and history , and letters confirming the official representation in the 
parent organization. The Petitioner contends that the reputation is established 
by its recognition or affiliation with which he contends is recognized by 
However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that affiliation with 
requires or confers a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, he has not shown that in 
which he served as founder and representative, enjoys a distinguished or eminent reputation in the 
field. 
/ 
4 
.
Matter of A-M-A-
Furthermore, while the Petitioner states that "various prestigious organizations have extended an 
invitation [to and athletes for participation in 
athletic events by the virtue of the 
membership [in] these two organizations," he has not provided evidence to support the claimed 
prestige of the inviting organizations, nor do the invitations indicate that the athletes have been 
selected based on their membership in the and Although the documentation 
shows affiliations between the and other competitive bodybuilding entities and 
indicates requests for and athletes to attend sanctioned events, it does not 
demonstrate that or enjoys a distinguished reputation in the field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not overcome the grounds in our prior decision for this criterion. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Whilethe Petitioner generally contends that "the 
evidence was sufficient" to demonstrate his eligibility "as an individual of extraordinary ability ," he 
does not specify how we erred in our findings with respect to the evidentiary criteria. Nor does the 
Petitioner supplement the motion with a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or 
regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or Department of 
Homeland Security, demonstrating that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our decision. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motions do not overcome the grounds in our prior decision, and he has not shown 
that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied . 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-A- , ID# 432223 (AAO Aug. 11, 2017) 
5