dismissed EB-1A Case: Fitness Trainer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 33947960 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a fitness trainer, seeks classification as an alien 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification through 
evidence of either a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b)(l) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." A 
petitioner can demonstrate that they meet the initial evidence requirements for this immigrant visa 
classification through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about lesser awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a fitness trainer and amateur bodybuilder. He is currently employed in the United 
States as a fitness trainer, and intends to open his own fitness center. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner renews his claim to meet six of the criteria. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that he has not established that he meets the 
initial evidentiary requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Documentation ofthe alien 's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have received prizes or awards which were 
granted for excellence in their field of endeavor, and that the prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized in their field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner submitted several certificates, two of which recognize his second place finish in a 
regional student bodybuilding competition in 2010. An additional two certificates relate to 
presentations he gave at conferences while a student at 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that any of these awards were 
nationally or internationally recognized in his field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner restates much of his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
and does not identify any errors in the Director's decision regarding this criterion. The Petitioner 
2 
appears to primarily rely upon the reputation ofl Ito demonstrate the national recognition of the 
latter two certificates, but the evidence does not indicate that the recognition of these awards extended 
beyond that institution. Notably, an article about the winners of I "68th final scientific 
conference" which lists the Petitioner as a third place winner in the "humanities in medicine" category 
was posted on the institution's website. We also note that none of the four certificates mentioned 
above, or the two "gratitude letters" from I I and a local mayor, recognize the Petitioner for his 
performance or achievements as a fitness trainer, his field of endeavor. 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has received nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for excellence in the field of fitness training, we conclude that he does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made 
original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 
petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
The Petitioner asserts that his development of a fitness training methodology constitutes an original 
athletic contribution of major significance, and that this is shown by the numerous reference letters 
submitted with his petition, as well as a presentation about his methodology. The Petitioner also 
asserts that the Director erred in not considering the additional reference letters he submitted in 
response to the Director's RFE. 
Regarding the latter point, the Director rejected consideration of the new letters because they were 
dated after the filing of the petition. A petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested 
classification at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). 
However, the reference letters primarily address facts that existed prior to the time of filing, and the 
letters are not new facts but the opinions of the Petitioner's colleagues and clients. Accordingly, we 
will consider them as part of the record in our review. 1 
Many of the letters submitted, initially and in response to the Director's RFE, are from the Petitioner's 
clients. Some of them are bodybuilders who credit the Petitioner for helping to improve their 
competitiveness. For example, E-D- states that the Petitioner became his personal trainer in 2007, and 
helped him to win local bodybuilding competitions the next year. 2 J-S- similarly credits the Petitioner 
for preparing him for winning a local bodybuilding competition in 2017. Both describe his fitness 
training methodology using words such as "innovative" and "groundbreaking." But as noted in the 
1 We have reviewed and considered all of the reference letters in the record, including those which are not specifically 
referenced in this decision. 
2 The record shows that the Petitioner completed training in sports nutrition and personal training in 2015. but includes no 
evidence of his qualifications as a personal trainer in 2007. This discrepancy must be addressed in any further proceedings 
in this matter. 
3 
Director's decision, neither writer explains the way in which Petitioner's methodology and techniques 
are truly novel or innovative. While the Petitioner may well have helped these individuals in their 
training, the letters do not show that his training methodology has impacted the field beyond his 
individual clients to reach the level of contribution required under this 
criterion. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 393-394 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding that contributions 
which were not adopted beyond a petitioner's employer do not meet this criterion). 
Other letters were written by clients who state that the Petitioner's training helped them to overcome 
the effects of health issues. R-M- writes that the Petitioner's method "significantly altered the course 
of my struggle with rheumatoid arthritis," and briefly describes the tailored exercise and nutrition 
programs the Petitioner delivered. D-W- states in his letter that after he suffered a significant injury, 
the Petitioner's training program helped him in his recovery. But we note that the record does not 
show that the Petitioner is a licensed physical therapist, and much like the letters discussed above, 
these are testimonials from satisfied clients which do not demonstrate that the his training methods 
have impacted or influenced the larger field of fitness training. 
Some of the letters assert that the Petitioner's training methods have had broader impacts beyond 
individuals. For example, the letters from M-V-G-, discussed in further detail below in our analysis 
under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), describe how the Petitioner's training program has 
been used in medical classes at and the Petitioner asserts that it has also been used in other 
educational institutions in Russia. But the letters lack sufficient detail regarding how the 
methodologies were used, and the record lacks evidence to support the Petitioner's claims regarding 
their implementation at other universities. 
In a different vein, V-V-T- writes in her letter that she has used the Petitioner's fitness methodology 
in her neurology practice, and in particular in the rehabilitation of patients recovering from strokes. 
As we noted above, the Petitioner is not a licensed physical therapist or any other type of medical 
practitioner, and the assertions that his fitness training has medical applications lack credibility and 
are not supported by documentary evidence beyond the letters. 
Regarding the presentation describing the Petitioner's fitness methodology, the Director stated in her 
decision that there was no evidence in the record of its publication or distribution. While the Petitioner 
does not respond or repudiate this point on appeal, we note that the methodology appears to be derived 
from papers authored by the Petitioner and published in at least one medical journal. 3 But the 
publication of these papers is not sufficient to show that the Petitioner's training methods have been 
of major significance in the field of fitness training, as it does not show the field's reaction, if any, to 
those papers. 
Per the above discussion, the Petitioner has not established that his fitness training methodology or 
techniques have influenced his field of endeavor to the extent that they are or major significance, and 
he therefore does not meet this criterion. 
3 At least one of the journals in which papers related to the Petitioner's fitness training methodology were published was 
a journal focused on publishing the works of young researchers and students, including undergraduates, and as such cannot 
be considered a professional or major trade publication. 
4 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must submit evidence that their work in the 
field of endeavor has been displayed, and that the exhibition or showcase where their work was 
displayed was artistic in nature. An exhibition is defined as a public showing. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
In this case, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of his participation in amateur bodybuilding 
competitions meets the requirements of this criterion. While he initially claimed this to be comparable 
evidence of the display of his work in the field at artistic exhibitions, on appeal the Petitioner refers to 
the USCIS Policy Manual and its definition of "exhibition," which includes examples of "works of 
art, objects of manufacture, or athletic skill." However, this inclusion of a definition for "exhibition" 
in the policy manual does not negate the regulatory language requiring that the exhibition or showcase 
be artistic in nature, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that a bodybuilding competition is artistic. 
More importantly, the Petitioner does not explain how his participation in bodybuilding competitions 
relates to his field of endeavor as a fitness trainer, in which the fruits of his work are seen in others. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his presentations at conferences should be considered to be comparable 
evidence under this criterion per the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). But his unsupported 
assertion that this evidentiary criterion does not readily apply to his occupation is not probative. Id. 
And even if we were to accept the Petitioner's statement that he is "not an artist" as sufficient, which 
we do not, he has also not explained how the presentation of posters and abstracts at conferences is 
comparable to the display of art in a gallery or museum, for example. Further, the Petitioner has not 
identified which of the presentations involved his field of fitness training. We note that several of the 
presentations focus on the Russian healthcare system, which the Petitioner has not asserted to be his 
field of endeavor. 
For all of the reasons given above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must first establish that they have served in a 
role that was either leading or critical for an organization or establishment, or a department of division 
thereof, and that the organization, establishment, department, or division has a distinguished 
reputation. Evidence of a leading role may include a title and matching duties, and should indicate 
that the petitioner is or was a leader. Evidence supporting a critical role should show that the petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's or 
establishment's activities, or those of a division or department. Second, a petitioner must show that 
the organization or establishment, or department or division thereof, for which the leading or critical 
role was performed has a distinguished reputation. Factors may include the size, longevity, media 
coverage, awards, and industry rankings of the organization, establishment, department, or division. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ). 
5 
Here, the Petitioner relied on his roles with S-T- LLC and I The evidence regarding his role 
with the former includes an agreement by which the Petitioner served as a brand ambassador for the 
company for an initial period of approximately three months. A letter from A-R-, the company's CEO, 
states that due to the Petitioner's role, the company secured major contracts for distribution of its 
products, and that he anticipates that the Petitioner will represent S-T- LLC at events in the United 
States in the future. A second letter from A-R-, submitted in response to the Director's RFE, reiterates 
that the Petitioner has been "pivotal in securing major contracts," and that he was "instrumental" in 
the company's successful entry into three named countries. However, the letter does not quantify the 
significance of the Petitioner's impact on the company's profitability, or provide other detailed 
information concerning his importance to the company's activities. Per the section of the USCIS 
Policy Manual referenced in the Petitioner's brief, letters such as these can be helpful as long as they 
include detailed and probative information. Id. The letter also stresses the Petitioner's role in trade 
shows, but only specifically mentions the I !Festival, in which the Petitioner competed in 
2019 and 2020. And as in the previous letter, A-R- stresses the Petitioner's future activities on the 
company's behalf in the United States, which does not demonstrate how he has already played a 
critical role for the company. As such, this evidence does not establish that as a brand ambassador, 
the Petitioner played a leading or critical role for S-T- LLC. 
Turning to the Petitioner's role for he submitted two letters from M-V-G-, who states that she 
is the chairman of the trade union bureau of students at the institution. In her first letter, she states that 
the Petitioner's fitness training methodology has been used in "the educational process" for five 
courses at the university, including physiology, anatomy, and endocrinology. Her second letter 
provides additional explanation, stating that the integration of the Petitioner's fitness techniques into 
these courses is "instrumental in fostering a more comprehensive approach to health education." She 
writes that students experience "physical implications in real-time through [the Petitioner's] fitness 
programs," and that his methodologies "instill[ing] habits of physical fitness and holistic health in 
future medical professionals." We first note that the writer does not describe any details of the 
Petitioner's methodologies beyond vague references to a "periodization system and a nutrition plan," 
nor does she explain how exactly these are incorporated into a classroom setting. More importantly, 
she does not indicate the extent to which the Petitioner's work has impacted the five named courses, 
or how this has affected quantifiable educational outcomes at Finally, as M-V-G- does not 
explain her role at in any detail, the level of her personal knowledge of the Petitioner's 
methodologies and their impact on the university's medical curriculum is not apparent. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his roles with either of these 
organizations have been leading or critical. As the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
element of this criterion, we need not discuss the remaining element to ascertain whether the Petitioner 
meets all of the criterion's requirements. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the evidence in the record 
and conclude that it does not show that either S-T- LLC or I I has a distinguished reputation. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for two additional criteria on appeal, relating to published 
material about him and his work at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and his authorship of scholarly articles 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot 
6 
fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three of criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3), the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal. We therefore reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding these additional evidentiary criteria. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the 
record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established 
the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of their 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 that they are one of the small percentage who have 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7