Date of Decision: September 9, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professional Bodybuilding Athlete and Coach
Field: Bodybuilding
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence: The petitioner demonstrated that she has received nationally or internationally recognized awards in her field of bodybuilding.
Published materials in professional publications or major media: The petitioner provided evidence of articles published about her in professional publications and major media outlets.
Judging the work of others in her field: The petitioner has acted as a judge in bodybuilding competitions, thereby meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her memberships in specific bodybuilding federations required outstanding achievements for admission.
Original contributions of major significance in her field: The evidence provided did not establish that her contributions had a major impact on the field of bodybuilding.
Leading or critical roles with distinguished organizations: The petitioner did not demonstrate that her roles within bodybuilding organizations were of leading or critical importance.
High salary in relation to others in her field: The evidence did not sufficiently show that the petitioner commanded a high salary relative to others in the field of bodybuilding.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Director acknowledged the petitioner’s nationally or internationally recognized awards but concluded that these did not establish that her work influenced the field as a whole.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Director recognized that the petitioner had published materials about her in major media but found that this did not demonstrate contributions of compelling interest or influence in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director determined that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of contributions that have significantly impacted the field of bodybuilding.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the criterion for judging the work of others by acting as a judge in bodybuilding competitions.
Membership in Associations:
The Director concluded that the petitioner’s memberships in bodybuilding federations did not require outstanding achievements for admission.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various types of evidence, including expert opinion letters, membership documents, evidence of her roles and contributions as a coach and athlete, and other supporting documents.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn and the matter was remanded for further review and entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director did not sufficiently explain the reasons for denial or conduct a detailed final merits determination considering the totality of the evidence. The Director also applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the petitioner’s awards and media coverage.
Next Steps: The Director is instructed to conduct a new decision analysis, including a thorough review of all submitted evidence and a detailed final merits determination to evaluate the petitioner’s eligibility for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
This remand provides the petitioner another opportunity to demonstrate her extraordinary ability in bodybuilding and to address any deficiencies identified in the initial decision.
