dismissed O-1A Case: Bodybuilding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20499000 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 23, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a fitness management company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary , a bodybuilder, as an 
individual of extraordinary ability . To do so, the Petitioner pursues 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, 
available to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center initially approved the petition, granting the Beneficiary 
0-1 classification. Subsequently , the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval 
of the petition, concluding that the statement of facts was not true and correct, and the record reflected 
gross error in classifying the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability . After reviewing the 
Petitioner's response to the NOIR, the Director issued a notice ofrevocation (NOR) , determining that 
the Petitioner did not overcome the issues raised in the NOIR. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education, business , or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability . Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science , education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements . A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(8)(i)(B) provides that the Director may revoke a petition 
approval at any time, even after the validity of the petition has expired. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(8)(iii) sets forth the grounds for revocation on notice: 
(A) Grounds.for revocation. The Director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent to 
revoke the petition in relevant part if it is determined that: 
( 1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity specified 
in the petition; 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and correct; 
(3) The petitioner violated the terms or conditions of the approved petition; 
( 4) The petitioner violated the requirements of section 101 (a)( 15)( 0) of the Act or 
paragraph (o) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (o) of this section or involved 
gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed statement 
of the grounds for revocation and the time period allowed for the petitioner's rebuttal. 
The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 days of the date of the 
notice. The Director shall consider all relevant evidence presented in deciding 
whether to revoke the petition. 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A Initial Filing 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129, claiming that the Beneficiary qualified as an individual of 
extraordinary ability as a bodybuilder. In its accompanying cover letter, the Petitioner provided a job 
description: 
[The Beneficiary] will be representing [The Petitioner] at bodybuilding competitions 
and is expected to train, follow diet and supplement protocol as instructed in 
preparations for those competitions with the goal of attaining is [sic] professional status 
in the Bodybuilding arena. 
As a sponsored athlete for [the Petitioner], [the Beneficiary] will also be required to 
represent brands of sponsoring companies ... for photoshoots, open houses, product 
demonstrations, guest posing and any other publicity or media events. 
As a representative of [the Petitioner], she will also be asked to assist in training and 
preparation of [the Petitioner's] clients when [s]he is able to and when it does not 
interfere with her preparation for competition. 
She will also be responsible for several tasks as a member of our team, including 
attending scheduled practices and training sessions; participate in bodybuilding events 
and competitions according to established rules and regulations; exercise and practice 
under the direction of athletic trainers or professional coaches in order to develop skills, 
improve physical condition, and prepare for competitions; maintain her optimum 
physical fitness levels by training regularly, following nutrition plans, and consulting 
with health professionals; assess her performance following an athletic competition, 
identifying her strengths and weaknesses, and making adjustments to improve her 
future performance. 
[The Beneficiary] will be paid a salary of $200,000 per year. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an itinerary of tournament events in which the Beneficiary would 
compete from 2017 -2019, a signed "Employment Agreement" (contract) between the Petitioner and 
Beneficiary reflecting a yearly salary of $200,000 and full coverage of health insurance, and 
documentation relating to the following categories of evidence: awards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]), memberships at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), published material at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). Based on the 
submitted documentation, the Director determined that the Petitioner established the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for 0-1 nonimmigrant classification and approved the petition. 
3 
B. NOIR 
Based of newly received information, the Director issued a NOIR on the following grounds. First, the 
Director concluded: 
users has determined that the Employment Agreement is fraudulent. users 
investigations revealed that [the Petitioner] is a shell company that was formed by the 
[B]eneficiary and [the Petitioner's] attorneyJ J solely for the purpose of 
filing the Form I-129 O-lA petition on the [B]eneficiary's behalf. Since [the Petitioner 
is] not an operational and viable entity, [the Petitioner does] not have the ability to 
employ the [B]eneficiary under the terms and conditions provided in the Employment 
Agreement. 
Indeed, users has learned that the [B]eneficiary has not been employed in accordance 
with the terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement and is, in fact, engaging 
in self-employment in violation of her O- lA status. Service records show that the 
[B]eneficiary submitted wage documents in support of her Form I-140 and Form I-485 
indicating that she was self-employed as a personal trainer, nutritional coach, poser and 
choreographer, earning wages far less than the $200,000 provided on the Employment 
Agreement. In addition, public records indicate that the [B]eneficiary started a 
GoFundMe account to raise funds to pay for her surgery, which demonstrates that she 
was not provided health insurance in accordance with the Employment Agreement. 
Service records also show that the [B]eneficiary has provided services to a company 
that was not included in the Form I-129 petition. Finally, USeIS investigations also 
revealed that the [B]eneficiary has been self-employed as a web cam model and actor, 
performing services outside the scope of the employment provided on the Employment 
Agreement. 
Second, the Director determined: 
users found that the Employment Agreement [the Petitioner] issued is fraudulent, and 
the record lacks any other evidence to show that [the Petitioner] had a valid contract to 
employ the [B]eneficiary as a Bodybuilder. Without a valid contract, users concludes 
that the [B]eneficiary did not have definite U.S. employment when [the Petitioner] filed 
this petition. Thus, the contract requirement has not been satisfied. 
Third, the Director decided: 
[T]he itinerary states the [B]eneficiary would compete in events in 2017 to 2019, but 
[the Petitioner] did not provide any evidence to show that the [B]eneficiary was 
registered to participate in the listed competitions; in fact; documents in the 
[B]eneficiary's I-140 petition indicate that she only competed in two competitions in 
201 7 and competed in zero competitions in 2018 and 2019. 
[T]he itinerary [the Petitioner] submitted is vague and does not provide specific 
competition locations nor specific event dates and locations for the photo shoots, open 
4 
houses, product demonstrations, guest posing and other publicity and media events [the 
Petitioner] claimed she would attend. The itinerary also lacks specific dates and 
locations for events during which the [B]eneficiary would assist in the training and 
preparation of [the Petitioner's] clients. Additionally, the itinerary lacks any 
information about where the [B]eneficiary will attend scheduled practices and training 
sessions. USCIS notes that the Form I-129 indicates the [B]eneficiary will work at 
13410 Bellamy Bthrs Blvd, Dade City, FL 33525, but public records indicate that this 
is a residential property rather than a gym or other appropriate location. Thus, the 
events requirement has not been satisfied. 
Finally, the Director concluded that the record reflected gross error in determining that the Beneficiary 
satisfied at least three of the categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). In 
fact, the Director found that the Beneficiary met only one criterion - awards, and she did not meet any 
of the other claimed criteria relating to memberships, published material, and high salary. 
C. NOR 
In response to the NOIR, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of a letter from its 
attorney; a letter from the Petitioner's vice-president,! I and printouts from PayPal. 
However, the Director concluded: 
____ letter is not sufficient. First, the letter is not independent and objective 
evidence to resolve the discrepancies pertaining to the [B]eneficiary's employment 
because she is associated with [the Petitioner]. MoreoverJ I explanation 
for the [B]eneficiary's webcam activities is not credible. Service investigators 
determined that the [B]eneficiary was engaging in pornographic activities when she 
appeared on the webcam. In addition, L I does not explain why the 
[B]eneficiary had a GoFundMe account to raise funds to pay for her surgery if she was 
receiving full health coverage, as provided in the employment agreement. 
Additionally) states that [the Petitioner] "obtain[ed] several sponsorships 
averaging $200,000" that "allowed [the [B]eneficiary] to travel for seminars, guest 
appearances, and competitions," but neither! lletter nor any other evidence 
in the record sufficiently demonstrates that [the Petitioner's] company paid the 
[B]eneficiary $200,000 in wages and resolves the discrepancies found in the 
[B]eneficiary's wage documents. Also, [the Petitioner] did not provide additional 
evidence to explain why the [B]eneficiary reported to be self-employed as a personal 
trainer if she was [the Petitioner's] employee and engaging in valid U.S. employment 
for [the Petitioner's] company. 
The PayPal statements are also insufficient to show that [the Petitioner is] a valid 
company that employed the [B]eneficiary. The address on the PayPal printouts do not 
correspond to the company address [the Petitioner] provided on the Form I-129. Also, 
the Pay Pal printouts do not demonstrate the nature of the payments made to and from 
[the Petitioner's] account; they only provide the payee and the amounts paid. Notably, 
none of the payments were made to the [Beneficiary], which further demonstrates that 
5 
she was not engaged in valid employment with the [Petitioner's] company and 
receiving the wages provided in the employment agreement. 
[The Petitioner] did not provide sufficient evidence to cure the deficiencies noted in the 
ITR and show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employment agreement 
[the Petitioner] submitted was valid. Thus, users concludes that the employment 
agreement was not true and correct. 
As it related to the contract, the Director referenced the submission of the letter from the Petitioner's 
attorney, the letter froml I and the printouts from PayPal and concluded for the reasons 
discussed above that the response was "insufficient to show that the employment agreement [the 
Petitioner] submitted was valid and credibly established the terms and conditions of the [B]eneficiary's 
U.S. employment." 
Regarding the Beneficiary's events, the Director again acknowledged the above-mentioned 
documentation, as wells as scorecards, an Instagram post, photos, flyers, and an article about home 
businesses. However, the Director found: 
[ A ]s previously discussed, the evidence is insufficient to show that the employment 
agreement [the Petitioner] submitted is valid, and users thus concludes that the 
[B]eneficiary did not have events pursuant to legitimate, U.S. employment in 
accordance with the terms and conditions provided in the employment agreement. In 
addition, the scorecards indicate the [B]eneficiary competed in three competitions in 
2017; inexplicably, [the Petitioner] provided a scorecard for a men's competition, as 
well as those that do not list the [B]eneficiary's name. Due to the limited nature of the 
scorecards, users cannot determine that the [B] eneficiary competed in 2018, 2019, 
and 2020 in accordance with the events listed on [the Petitioner's] itinerary and the 
terms and conditions provided on the employment agreement. The flyers provide the 
event dates and locations for three publicity events, but [ the Petitioner] did not provide 
specific event dates and locations for the [B]eneficiary's other activities, as listed in the 
ITR; these include photo shoots, product demonstrations, guest posing, training 
sessions, practices, and client training and preparation sessions. Finally, the article 
about home businesses does not reference [the Petitioner's] business and indicate that 
[the Petitioner] ran a valid gym and bodybuilding company from [the Petitioner's] 
residence. 
[The Petitioner] did not satisfy this requirement by a preponderance of the evidence 
and show that the [B]eneficiary had definite, non-speculative events. 
Finally, as it pertains to the Beneficiary's classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, the 
Director discussed the submitted evidence and concluded that the Beneficiary did not satisfy any 
additional criteria. Specifically, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's membership with the 
International Federation of Bodybuilding and Fitness (IFBB) did not meet the membership criterion, 
articles from MuscleMag and muscleinsider.com did not fulfill the published material criterion, and 
the issues with the Employment Agreement did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 
high salary criterion. 
6 
D. Appeal 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, 
Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); 
see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1 st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts 
and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
In the case here, the Petitioner submits on appeal the same documentation offered in response to the 
Director's NOIR and lists or references the evidence for some of the issues discussed in the Director's 
NOR. Moreover, the Petitioner does not explain how the Director erred in any of her findings. Further, 
the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusion that I letter lacked independent, 
objective evidence, failed to explain the Beneficiary's pornographic activities, did not rectify the 
Beneficiary's GoFundMe account for surgery when the contract claimed full health coverage, lacked 
evidence showing that the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $200,000 in wages as stipulated in the 
contract, and offered no explanation as to why the Beneficiary reported to be self-employed as a 
personal trainer in a separate immigration proceeding. 
In addition, the Petitioner does not address the Director's findings as they related to the submitted 
PayPal statements. Specifically, the Petitioner does not dispute that the PayPal printouts do not 
correspond the Petitioner's address provided on Form I-129, they do not show the nature of payments 
to and from the Petitioner's account, and none of the payments were made to the Beneficiary. 
We note here that the Petitioner submits a letter from who stated: 
As a bodybuilding video producer, I have unfortunately found that users of my website: 
have illegally uploaded content from the website to other platforms 
such as Y ouTube, Pornhub, and others. I have no control over what users upload; it is 
an illegal act and as such I issue Digital Millennium Copyright Act reports to have this 
content removed from these platforms, as I find it. 
Furthermore, this is an ongoing and useless venture. The U.S. DMCA does not protect 
copyright holders; rather it enables piracy and illegal use of legitimately held 
copyrighted content to nefarious and illegitimate outlets. [The Beneficiary] is not in 
control and does not monetarily gain from these uploads and I am stating that in fact 
with this letter. 
However, the letter does not resolve, or even dispute, that the Beneficiary was engaged in pornographic 
activities on the webcam rather than performing bodybuilding services for the Petitioner as outlined 
in the initial cover letter and Employment Agreement. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's events, the Petitioner simply states "[a]attached please find 
documentation which clearly shows that the beneficiary participated in the listed events on the 
itinerary." Again, the Petitioner does not address any of the Director's findings or explain how the 
7 
Director erred. The Petitioner does not respond to the Director's evaluation of the scorecards, the 
flyers and other promotional material, and the home business articles. 
The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. In general, a few errors or minor 
discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an individual or an employer seeking 
immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Circ. 2003). 
However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, the petitioner fails to resolve those 
errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the 
inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts stated in the petition are not true. Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. at 591. 
Here, the Director outlined the serious errors and discrepancies in the record through the issuance of 
the NOIR. Furthermore, the Director thoroughly addressed the evidence in response to the NOIR and 
sufficiently explained why the evidence did not overcome the derogatory information. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits the same documentation without explaining how the Director erred as a matter of 
law, statement of fact, or evaluation of the evidence. Because the Petitioner did not resolve the 
inconsistencies in the record, we agree with the Director's revocation of the petition's approval for the 
reasons discussed above. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, the Petitioner makes the 
identical arguments it used in response to the Director's NOIR. In fact, the Director's NOR discussed 
the submitted evidence and addressed the arguments and explained how the evidence did not show 
that the Beneficiary satisfied the membership, published material, and high salary criteria. Again, the 
Petitioner does not address any of the Director's specific findings or explain how the Director erred as 
a matter of law, statement of fact, or evaluation of the evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's meets at least three criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought and that the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. Accordingly, 
the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8