Date of Decision: February 12, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Bodybuilder
Field: Bodybuilding
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria were met according to the decision.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner claimed to have won numerous awards from the International Federation of Bodybuilding and Fitness (IFBB) and its member body. However, while the petitioner provided photos of medals and certificates, the evidence did not demonstrate that these awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Criterion 2: Membership in Associations
The petitioner provided evidence of membership in teams associated with the IFBB. However, the documentation did not show that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 3: Published Material in Professional or Major Media
The petitioner submitted several documents, including a YouTube interview and web printouts listing competition results. These materials did not meet the criteria as they were not considered major media, and the published material did not focus specifically on the petitioner.
Criterion 4: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner claimed roles as a national bodybuilding instructor and competitor for the IFBB. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that these roles were leading or critical for distinguished organizations with a recognized reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The documentation provided by the petitioner did not establish that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided did not meet the required standards of professional or major media coverage focusing specifically on the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
There was no adequate evidence provided to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of bodybuilding.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge in bodybuilding competitions.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership claims did not meet the criteria for outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not prove that his roles were leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Photographs and Certificates: Photos of medals, certificates of athletic achievement, and web printouts.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Media Documentation: YouTube interview and competition result listings.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The documentation provided did not establish national or international recognition of awards, significant published material, or roles in distinguished organizations. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
