dismissed EB-1A Case: Fitness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-L-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 25,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fitness instructor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll53(b)(1)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she meets at least three criteria and qualifies for classification 
as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 m 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." 8C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
Matter of R-L-S-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two optioni for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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), a[{d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a fitness instructor. As she has not 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). The Director held that the Petitioner did not meet any of these criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets the following criteria: published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), scholarly 
articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high 
salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Upon review, we conclude that the evidence in the record does 
not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in the jield.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 Director found that the evidence in the record did not support the published material criterion, 
concluding that the articles in the record were not about the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states that the record ·contains at least ten examples of published inedia coverage about her. While 
we note that several of these articles were published after the petition was filed, we find that the 
record contains sufficient documentation to meet the requirements of this criterion. For example, the 
2 
.
Matter of R-L- S-
Petitioner has submitted two articles publish ed on . entitled, " 
" and "[ 
., Both of these articl es are about the Petitioner and her work in the field and the record 
reflects that these are pub I ished in major medi a. ' 
In addition, an article publi shed on . contains an interview with the Peti tio ner to discuss 
several tips for feeling healthier while traveling . This article states that the Petitio ner is " 
· ., 
and provides sufticient details regardi ng her work in the field. The 
record reflects t hat has significant daily and mon thly unique visitors indicative of major 
media. Therefor e, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific , scholarly, artistic, athletic. or busine ss-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) (v). 
The record reflects that the Pet itioner is one of three fitness hosts for ·, an online fitness 
company with over 3 milli on subscr ibers and that her fitness videos have amassed over 200 million 
views online. In addition , the Petitioner has over 98,000 follow ers on lnsta gram and 18,000 
followers on Twitter. After acknowledging the numb er of onlin e followers the Petition er has and h er 
success as an online fitness instructor, the Director held that the recqrd does not dem onstrate that her 
work has significantly impact ed or otherwise changed the industry. On appeal, the Petition er states 
that her impact on the field as a whole is subst antial, but she does not provide specific det ails to 
corroborat e this claim. 
In her letter , the CEO of congratulates the Petitioner for 
promoting fitness in Israel and for her influenc e o n social media as a fitness instru ctor, but this does 
not addre ss how she has impacted the field of fitness. Similarl y, a letter from the Vice 
President at states that the Petitioner has had "an incr edibly succes sful 
career" and that her online popularity is "what advertisers are looking for these days." However , this 
does not indic ate how the Peti tioner success' s as an influencer equates to con tribu tions of major 
significance in the field of fitness instruction. 
The record contains a letter from , the Chief Oper ating Officer for 
who asse rts that the number of the Petitione r's follower s establishes that h er contributions 
are of major significance. , CEO of, reaches the sa me conclusi on, stat ing that 
"[the Petitioner's] health and fitness posts, blbgs , videos, campaign s, and commercials have a 
following of ove r 3.6 milli on with over 300 ' milli on views,"2 which he states means tha t her 
." .Similarly, , the social media manage r 
at indicates that the Petitioner 's " undeniable reach and pos itive influ ence across sites 
1 The record contains evidence that the Petitioner has appeared live on , a morning television show, but 
the Petitioner has not submitted a transcript of this interview, and the documentation submitted regarding the viewership 
relates to the · website rather than the television program and does not establish this as major media. 
2 We note that different figures are cited throughout the recor<.l for both the number of followers and views. 
3 
.
Matter of R-L- S-
like Facebook and YouTube made her a perfec t candidate," notin g that "she has shown ex plo sive 
growth in the soc ial media sphere. " 
Similarly , , the Brand Manager for , states in her letter that the 
Petition er is 
a " unique artist in her field " who co mbines "a collage of knowledge , motivational 
abilities, genuine concern and inter est, meshed with her own perso nal flair and humor that can make 
·somethin g incredibly difficult enjoyable and rewa rding." states that the Petitioner 
has such a large following because "she is the best at what she does ." While thes e letters praise the 
Petitioner 's popularity and success as an onlin e fitness instructor, they do not spec ify how her 
populari ty equat es to original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. The record 
does not demonstrate how the Petitioner 's con tributions hav e impacted the tield of fitness 
instruction . 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articl es in the fie ld. in professional or mqjor 
trade publications or other major media . . 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h )(3)(vi). 
The Director held that the reco rd did not cont ain sufficien t translations of the articles sub mitted. 
Any docum ent in a foreign langu age must be accompanied by a full English hmguage trans lation. 
8 C.F.R . § 103 .2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the Engli sh l anguage translation is complete 
and accu rate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign langu age into English. 
!d. 
On appeal, the Petition er states that the Director is taking issue with a very fine difference between 
"true and accu rate" as stated in the certifi cate of tran slation for the articl e, discussed 
above, and the terms " complete and accurate" as required in the regulati on at 8 C.F.R. § W3.2{b){3). 
We note that this certificate of translation indic ates that it is a "summary rendition of the a ttached 
Korean document ," rather than a full English translation, as required. !d . With out a full and 
properly certified English translat ion, we cann ot meaningfully dete rmine whe the r the translated 
material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner' s claim s. Therefore, the Petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
estahlishme!Us that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( viii). 
The Dire ctor held that the Petitioner's .role as the' face of the brand represents one as 
a model or spo kesperson and is inapplicable to the claimed area as a profess ional fitn ess ins tructor. 
On appe al, the Petitioner states that companie s, such as . (with the brand . 
1 and , selected her to fill the role as a model or spokesp erso n becau se of her popularity 
and recogniti on online. 
The record contains a letter from , the marketing dep artment manager at 
, s tating that the Petiti oner "was chosen as the face of beca use of her huge 
popularity in the fitness indu stry." She further s~a te s that "[ w]e wanted [the Petiti oner] over anyone 
4 
. •. 
Matter of R-L-S-
else becau se she is recogni zed and our consumers are very familiar with her." Ms. also 
indicates that the company hosted a fit camp where its customers could meet the Petitioner. The 
record contains an article in in which the Petition er is displ aying the 
brand in her fitness routin es. However, as indicated above, this article is not acco mpanied by a 
certified translation . 
While we find that the Petitioner's background as a fitness model appears to be tied to the role the 
company hired her to perform , the evidence in the record does not es tablish this as a leading or 
critical role . The Petitioner has not established the duration of her role as a spokesperson for 
. whether her work extended beyond the Korean market , and most importantl y, to what extent 
her work influ enced the success of the company. While Ms. state s that the fit camp was a "huge 
promotion " and that they were "delighted with the tum out," the reco rd doe s not contain obj'ective 
evidence to demonstrate the extent of this success. We note that the record does not contain 
evidence demonstrating that , is an organization with a distinguish ed reputation. 
The record contains a letter from , the co-founder of , who states that the 
Petitioner was hired to be "the face" of our brand and that " [h]er statu s as a high profile fitness 
instructor brought our brand significant success that strengthened our customer-product-service 
relationship and influenced a· large audience to buy and consume more." While Ms. states 
that the Petitioner influenced 's customers to purchase mor e, the record does not demonstrate 
the extent or duration of this increase in sales to demonstrate how critical her role was to the 
company. In addition, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that has a 
distinguish ed reputation. 
While the record reflects that the Petitioner is one of three fitne ss hosts for , the record 
does not specify how the Petitioner has a leadirl,g or critical role within the . company; 
nor does the record contain evidence that it is an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
Therefore , the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion . 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other 'signifi cantly high 
·remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Regarding salary, the record contains an agreement between the Peti tioner and 
stating she would be paid $60,000 for a video shoot over three days and another agree ment with 
stating she would be paid $30,000 for a video shoot of at least 1.5 hour s of produced 
content. The reco rd also contains an agreement between the Petit ioner and . 
indicating that she would receive $4,000 per month creating and filming- fitness videos from 
February 2015 to February 2018. The Director held that these agreements in the record postdated 
the filing of the instant petition and would not be considered toward this criterion. We find that the 
Petitioner signed the agreements with these companies prior to the filing of the inst ant petition, but 
·the agreem ents with · and are not signed by both parties to demonstrate a 
contractual obligation. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner received payment from 
5 
.
Matter of R-L-S-
'· Therefore, the record does not establish that the these comp anies· as well as 
Petitioner mee ts this criterion. 
-----
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents . that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate , concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-L-s-, ID# 1247030 (AAO Jun e 25 , 2018) 
6