dismissed EB-1A Case: Bodybuilding

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: $CP 1 4 2007 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employrnent-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 petitioner appealed the 
decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is 
now before the AAO on motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of 
the AAO will be affirmed, and the approval of the petition will remain revoked. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1155, provides: "The Secretary 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 (BIA) 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 Dec. 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. at 589. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. Part 6 of the Form 1-140 petition reflects that the petitioner seeks employment as a "Professional 
Bodybuilder." 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seehng immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. § 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. $ 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. 
On motion, counsel states: "The AAO does not appear to dispute that the petitioner attained sustained national 
acclaim for her achievements in Mexico. . . . Notoriety outside the petitioner's native country is not required to 
meet the sustained national acclaim standard." Counsel's first sentence misstates the AAO's April 14, 2006 
decision. The AAO found that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. We agree with counsel that the 
petitioner is not required to make a showing of sustained national acclaim in more than one country. The 
statutory and regulatory language clearly allows for the submission of evidence demonstrating sustained 
"national" acclaim at the very top level of one's field. The findings in the AA07s decision were entirely 
consistent with this conclusion. 
The AA07s decision concluded by stating: 
Review of the record . . . 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 withtn 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. 
Specifically, the AAO and the director found the petitioner had not established that she meets at least three of the 
regulatory criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. As noted above, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability as a "Professional Bodybuilder." We aclcnowledge the petitioner's success as an 
amateur bodybuilder in Mexico during the 1990s. However, success at the amateur level in bodybuilding is 
not an indication that an athlete "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The introductory language of section 203(b) of the Act relates to visa 
Page 4 
"allocation for employment-based immigrants." [emphasis added] Therefore, we find that evaluating the 
petitioner among "professional" bodybuilders (rather than amateurs) is the proper basis for comparison in this 
proceeding. CIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet 
the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comrnr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 60899.' Likewise, it does not follow that a bodybuilder who relies heavily upon her amateur accomplishments 
should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise 
would contravene the regulatory requirement that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of 
individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Since turning professional in 1998, there is no evidence that the petitioner has received any prizes or awards 
at professional bodybuilding competitions. The fact that the petitioner has not won any professional 
bodybuilding titles since 1998 suggests that whatever acclaim she had earned as an amateur in Mexico has not 
been sustained. The petitioner's eligibility for this restrictive visa classification cannot rest primarily upon her 
achievements during the 1990s as an amateur female bodybuilder. 
A June 26, 2002 letter from 
 Owner, I, and founding editor of FLEY 
magazine, the official publication of the International Federation of Bodybuilders, states: "A country like Mexico 
is a very good example of a country where the prevailing culture is not very sympathetic to women bodybuilders 
and where opportunities for advancement and success past a certain level simply don't exist." 
In addressing the scope of the petitioner's field, the AAO's decision stated: 
In general, the evidence suggests that the petitioner's field is exceedingly small. Ranlung at the top of a 
field of one is meaningless. mle 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 . . . . 
1 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent outside of the district in 
which the case arose, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1999, the 
court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 
1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. Ij 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that CIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Counsel argues that this conclusion "has no support in either law or fact. . . . By requiring that the petitioner 
'demonstrate that she has won awards or prizes in a field with a significant pool of potential competitors,' the 
AAO is imposing a greater requirement than the statutory 'sustained national acclaim standard. "' 
We find that the AAO's observations are supported by the statute, regulations, and binding precedent. It is 
certainly reasonable to conclude that a sport with a substantial competitive following would provide a greater 
opportunity for demonstrating one's acclaim at the national or international level, as opposed to a sport where the 
competitive field is exceedingly small. Further, as indicated previously, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2) 
states: "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." Qualifying as one of that "small 
percentage" at the very top of one's field requires an athlete to distinguish herself fiom a significant number 
of her peers. In Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 955, the AAO found significant that the alien in that case had an 
all-around ranking of 10" among 10,000 professional golfers worldwide and 600 in the PGA (Professional 
Golfers' Association) tours. Ranking 10" among 10,000 professional golfers places an individual in the top tenth 
of one percent of the field. Rhg 10' among 600 in the PGA tours places an individual within the top two 
percent of that field. Thus, unlike the petitioner's evidence, the evidence submitted by the athlete in Matter of 
Price was sufficient to satis@ the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
A July 2,2002 letter from, President of the Mexican Federation of Bodybuilders, 
states that the petitioner was "in the 26 place of the IFBB [International Federation of BodyBuilders] Pro- 
female ranking out of 98 other bodybuilders.'" In contrast to the hgh ranking of the professional athlete in 
Matter of Price, tlvs ranking does not place the petitioner in that "small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field." After the petitioner began competing professionally in 1998, she finished eighth out of ten in 
her class at the 2000 IFBB Jan Tana Pro Women's Classic, fourth out of four in her class at the 2001 Women's 
Extravaganza Pro Bodybuilding competition sponsored by the IFBB, fourth out of six in her class at the 2001 Jan 
Tana Pro Classic, third out of seven in her class at the 2002 Southwest USA Women's Pro Cup, and sixth out of 
six in her class at the 2002 Jan Tana Pro classic.' None of these finishes elevates the petitioner to that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the sport of bodybuilding. The petitioner's hlghest professional 
finish, thrd out of seven, placed her only within the top 43 percent of her competitive class. Thus, the 
evidence presented by the petitioner fails to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. Ij 204.5(h)(2). 
Counsel also argues that the petitioner has "satisfied at least three out of the 10 criteria of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) 
for determining extraordinary ability." 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, 
internationally recogmzed 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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for thls classification 
merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. Ij 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of 
2 
 According to the IFBB's constitution, the "IFBB founded in 1946, is an international sport governing body 
for the sport of bodybuilding and fitness." 
3 
 The petitioner finished sixth out of six female middleweight competitors at the 2002 Jan Tana Pro Classic. 
See 11ttp:liwww.bod~buildinn.com/fun/2002ian.hixn, accessed on June 1 1, 2007. 
whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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 petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the 
following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In addressing this criterion, the AAO's April 14,2006 decision stated: 
covered in the local section of a Queretaro newspaper. In 1998, the petitioner competed at the 13' 
Iberoamericano Championships in Guatemala where an article, according to an incomplete translation, 
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 frst 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 EBB 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 fiom more than one country is internationally 
4 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 7 
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 
qualifylng competitions. Rather, these competitions appear to be the qualifylng competitions for the Ms. 
Olympia competition. We note that in Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm. 1994), the 
AAO found significant that the alien in that case had an all-around ranking of 10' 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. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a certified English language translation of an article appearing in 
MuscleMag Mexico, entitled "Mr. Iberoamerica," stating: "Last year in the Iberoamerican Championships 
that were held in Guatemala more than 250 competitors fkom more than 14 countries were participating and 
competing. Mexican competitors did very good, they won 3rd place as a country. . . . 1'' Place Female 
Heavyweight class and overall: [the petitioner].'" While this article states that the event involved 250 
competitors, there is no indication as to how many of these competitors were male bodybuilders versus how 
many were female. The record includes no evidence (such as a competition roster or official competitive 
results) indicating the specific number of female bodybuilders who competed in the Iberoamerican 
Championships. The petitioner also submits a certified English language translation of an article entitled 
"[The petitioner] is excellent a[t] the XI11 Iberoamerican Championships" which discusses her victory. The 
name of the publication in whch ths article appeared has not been identified. The record also includes a June 
13, 2005 letter from -, President of the Mexican Federation of Bodybuilders, stating: 
[The petitioner] won several times the most renown [sic] contests in Mexico such as the NATIONAL 
CHAMPIONSHIPS and the MS. PERFECTION titles, but in our country, this is not enough to reach 
the Professional level. To earn her Pro Card she needed to won [sic] an International competition 
such as the IBEROAMERICAN CHAMPIONSHIPS, which is sanctioned by the IFBB, and in which 
25 countries competed. She represented our country winning her class in the 1998 
IBEROAMERICAN CHAMPIONSHIPS, as a winner in her class she competed against the winners 
of the other weight classes and winning the overall title she earned the Pro Card. 
Regarding the preceding evidence relating to the petitioner's victory at the Iberoarnerican Championships, the 
petitioner failed to submit evidence showing the total number of female competitors who participated, the 
circulation of the publications that covered the event, or that she competed against professionals rather than 
only amateurs. Moreover, even if the petitioner had provided such evidence, we note that her 1998 victory 
occurred four years before the petition was filed and thus is not consistent with sustained national acclaim. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner sought entry as a professional bodybuilder and, thus, 
5 
 The petitioner's photograph appeared on the cover of the issue that included this article. 
Page 8 
must demonstrate professional awards or prizes. The plain language of this criterion requires the alien's receipt 
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence "in the field of endeavor.'" 
In the petitioner's sport, beyond the "arnateur" level, there exists the "professional" level, which is the highest 
level of competition. Thus, the petitioner's amateur bodybuilding victories, including the Iberoamerican 
Championships, are not an indication that she has reached the "very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Without evidence showing that the petitioner has won prizes at competitions with a 
significant pool of competitors at the professional level, we cannot conclude that her competitive victories meet 
ths criterion. 
The petitioner's motion includes evidence showing that she received a plaque from the Chairman of the 
Institute of Sports and Recreation of the State of Queretaro, Mexico. This award reflects regional recognition 
rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner also submits evidence showing that she was presented with a "Luchador Olmeca" Trophy by 
the Mexican Sports Confederation in 1999. The documentation submitted by the petitioner indicates that this 
award is given to the best Mexican sportsman or sportswoman in various sports categories based on "their 
discipline, dedication and enthusiasm in favor of their sport." This single award appears to qualify as a lesser 
nationally recognized award for excellence. However, the plain language of 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i) 
requires the "alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards" (emphasis 
added). As noted by the director, one such award does not satisfy the plain language of this criterion. 
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, we note that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulation at 
8 C .F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) require the petitioner to demonstrate that her national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. Since turning professional in 1998, there is no evidence that the petitioner has received any prizes 
or awards at professional bodybuilding competitions. The fact that the petitioner did not win any professional 
bodybuilding titles suggests that whatever acclaim she had earned as an amateur in Mexico during the 1 990s was 
not sustained during the four years of her professional career preceding the filing of this petition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets thls criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their discblines or fields. 
In addressing this criterion, the AAO's April 14,2006 decision stated: 
The petitioner relies on her professional membership in IFBB to meet this criterion. She submitted 
IFBB7s constitution, which provides: 
9.2 Direct Membership: 
6 
 Parts 5 and 6 of the 1-140 petition identify the petitioner's "Occupation" and "Job title" as "Professional 
Bodybuilder." 
Page 9 
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 membershp in IFBB is based on membershp 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 EBB 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 membershp 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. 
On motion, counsel cites the June 26, 2002 letter &om which states: "After totally dominating 
amateur bodybuilding for women in Mexico for a number of years, [the petitioner] was deemed qualified to 
- - 
compete as a professional by the IFBB." Counsel also cites the June 13, 2005 letter fi-om 
as fiuther evidence for this criterion and argues that the preceding evidence was "ignored or disregarded 
by the AAO." Wlule these letters of support indicate that the petitioner's amateur victories allowed her to 
compete professionally at IFBB events, we do not find that earning the right to compete for prize money is 
indicative of outstanding achievement in professional bodybuildmg. The petitioner has still not provided the 
official membership criteria for the Mexican Federation of Bodybuilders 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. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets 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 classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualifL 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New 
York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.7 
In addressing this criterion, the AAO's April 14,2006 decision stated: 
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 
sigmficance 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. 
On motion, the petitioner submits articles entitled "[The petitioner] receives an important national award" and 
"Award well deserved is given by INDEREQ [Institute of Sports and Recreation of the State of Queretaro] to 
[the petitioner]." Both articles were accompanied by a full English language translation, but the name of the 
publications featuring the articles was not identified. The petitioner also submits an incomplete English language 
translation of an article appearing in MuscleMag Mexico, entitled "Mr. Iberoamerica." The date of the 
preceding articles and the name of their authors were not identified as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The documentation accompanying the motion also includes a Ml 
English language translation of an interview of the petitioner published in Fisicoculturismo y Fitness magazine. 
The AAO's April 14, 2006 decision specifically noted that 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."8 Despite being informed of this deficiency, the petitioner's 
7 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
8 
Having one's name appear in a published listing of competitive results (with no specific discussion about the 
petitioner) does not satisfy the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For example, the 
petitioner's name was listed as placing eighth out of ten competitors at the 2000 IFBB Jan Tana Pro Women's 
Classic in the November 2000 issue of FLEX magazine. The petitioner, however, was not discussed in the article 
Page 1 I 
motion includes no circulation statistics or other evidence that Fisicoculturismo y Fitness magazine or the other 
publications featuring the articles identified above are professional, major trade publications, or other major 
media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientij?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thejield. 
In addressing this criterion, the AAO's April 14,2006 decision stated: 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's awards and "mere presence" at bodybuilding competitions 
generated "vast amounts of financial backing for the sport." Counsel mher asserts that the petitioner 
"will" have an opportunity for sponsorshp deals. Finally, counsel quotes fiom the petitioner's reference 
letters. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that her achievements were 
"original" or contributions of major sipficance. 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 K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 7 1 5 (BIA 1 993). 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 719. While Muni v. RVS, 
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. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrn. 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 
accompanying the published results. If the published material is not primarily about the petitioner, then it fails to 
demonstrate her national or international acclaim. 
Page 12 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of SofJci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Calijiornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 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. 8 204.5(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 Wnlters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 
209 (1 997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 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 
bodybuilders. , a professional photographer with Physique Art, Inc., asserts that he 
became a ner through magazine coverage of her accomplishments and has worked 
with her. praises the petitioner's accomplishments, 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 features the petitioner on his own website dedicated to 
female bodybuilders. He praises the petitioner's accomplishments, 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 etitioner's class somewhat diminishes the evidentiary value of his 
assertions. Regardless, 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 petitioner is "a role model and a great 
motivation to many bodybuilders in Mexico and around the world." points to no facts that 
would support hs assertions, such as evidence that the number of amateur female bodybuilders has 
increased by a statistically sigmficant number since the petitioner began competing successfidly. 
, Producer and Owner of Fast Twitching Video, asserts that his video of the petitioner posing 
in various outfits is one of hs "highest grossing titles" that has sold between 800 and 1,000 copies 
worldwide and grossed approximately $20,000. We concur with the &rector 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 oEFLEXMagazine, 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 constitute "contributions of major significance." The 
petitioner also submitted letters fi-om 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. 
On motion, counsel argues that the petitioner's awards and competitive results meet this criterion. The 
petitioner's awards and competitive results, however, have previously been addressed under the awards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate 
and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and original contributions of major 
significance, CIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one 
criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least 
three criteria would be meaningless. In order to satisfy this criterion, the petitioner must show that her 
athletic contributions have had a substantial impact on her field or that the field has somehow changed as a 
result of her achievements. For example, holding a world record in one's sport (in certain instances) can 
constitute a major contribution since the record is something to which other athletes aspire. In this case, the 
petitioner has failed to demonstrate original athletic accomplishments that rise to the level of contributions of 
major significance consistent with sustained national (or international) acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's May 21, 2005 notice of intent to revoke, the petitioner submitted evidence 
showing that she wrote a nutritional column responding to reader questions that appeared in the November 
2003 and December 2003 issues of Fisicoculturismo y Fitness magazine. These articles were not accompanied 
by certified English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, 
there is no indication that these articles were "scholarly" in nature or that this magazine qualifies as a 
professional, major trade publication, or a form of other major media. More importantly, the issues in which 
the petitioner's column appeared were published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this material in thls proceeding. Thus, the petitioner 
has not established that she meets this criterion. On motion, counsel does not address this criterion. 
Page 14 
Evidence of the display of the alien 3 work in thejield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The plain language of this criterion indicates that it applies to artists rather than to competitive athletes such 
as the petitioner. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion 
will apply to every occupation. 
In addressing this criterion, the AAO's April 14,2006 decision stated: 
Counsel has continuously maintained that the petitioner's appearances at competitions are displays of her 
"art," namely her body. The director rejected ths 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 satisfy 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, 
bodybuildmg 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 1890s on the shapely body. 
The petitioner submits materials fi-om 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 fi-om 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 ths 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 &splay 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 tks 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 
Page 15 
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. 
On motion, counsel states: "The AAO . . . erroneously adopted the finding of the CSC [California Service 
Center] Director that bodybuilding is a sport instead of an art." Counsel argues that "bodybuilding is both a 
sport and an art." In support of ths argument, the petitioner submits material printed from Wikipedia, an 
online encyclopedia, stating: 
Bodybuilding is the process of developing muscle fibres through the combination of weight training, 
increased caloric intake, and rest. Someone who engages in this activity is referred to as a 
bodybuilder. As a sport, called competitive bodybuilding, bodybuilders display their physiques to a 
panel of judges, who assign points based on their aesthetic appearance. [emphasis in original] 
Counsel focuses on the term "aesthetic" to argue that bodybuilding is an art. The above material, however, refas 
to competitive bodybuilding "as a sport" rather than an art. Virtually every athlete "displays" his or her work in 
the sense of performing in front of an audience. Nothing in the IFBB's constitution states that bodybuilding is 
an art, nor is there any other objective evidence originating fi-om the IFBB indicating that the various 
competitions in whlch the petitioner competed were "artistic exhibitions" rather than sporting events. Further, the 
record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner participated in a competitive event administered by an 
arts organization as opposed to a sporting organization. Thus, we must conclude that the petitioner's field is not 
in the arts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the perj40ming arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In addressing this criterion, the AAO's April 14,2006 decision stated: 
While the petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion, we note the submission of evidence that the 
petitioner appears in a production, "The [petitioner's name] Video." The cover for 
the video does not su est that it is a fitness video. Rather, the petitioner merely poses in various outfits. 
As stated abovasserts that the petitioner's video is one of hs 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 
 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 petitioner does not challenge the above findings on motion. Thus, the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this criterion. 
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. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A); 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding and our prior decision that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate her receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the 
criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualifjr 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The record supports the director's determination that the petition was 
approved in error. Accordingly, the director's recognition of the past error was good and sufficient cause to 
revoke the approval of the immigrant petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 590. 
The approval of the petition will remain revoked for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for revocation. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The burden remains with the petitioner in revocation 
proceedings to establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter of Cheung, 12 
I&N Dec. 71 5 (BIA 1968); Matter of Estime, 19 I&N at 452 n. 1 ; Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 589. Here, 
the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's April 14, 2006 decision dismissing the appeal is affirmed and the approval of the 
petition remains revoked.