This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO denied both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient new evidence or legal argument to overcome the prior dismissal finding that he met only one of the required three criteria.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The Petitioner, an Iranian bodybuilding promoter, manager, and coach, sought EB-1A classification but was found to meet only the judging criterion out of the required three. On motion, he submitted letters from athletes, articles, and organization documents to argue for awards, published material, original contributions, and leading role criteria. The AAO found the new evidence insufficient: awards were not shown to be nationally recognized for excellence, articles either lacked authorship or were not about him, athlete testimonials showed only individual rather than field-wide impact, and his organizations lacked demonstrated distinguished reputations. The motion to reconsider also failed because the Petitioner did not identify specific legal or policy errors in the prior decision.
What failed: 1. Evidence of athletes' achievements was consistently attributed to the athletes rather than the petitioner himself, failing both the awards and original contributions criteria. 2. Publications submitted as major media lacked circulation data, author identification, or demonstrated prominence in the field. 3. The petitioner's organizations were not shown to have distinguished reputations — affiliation with a parent body alone was insufficient.
Takeaway: Promoters and coaches seeking EB-1A must document their own awards and recognition separately from the athletes they support, and must provide concrete comparative circulation data to establish that publications covering them qualify as major media. Claims about organizations' reputations require direct evidence of distinction, not just affiliation with higher-level bodies.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Evidence of athletes' achievements was consistently attributed to the athletes rather than the petitioner himself, failing both the awards and original contributions criteria
- Publications submitted as major media lacked circulation data, author identification, or demonstrated prominence in the field
- The petitioner's organizations were not shown to have distinguished reputations — affiliation with a parent body alone was insufficient.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metPetitioner's certificates and medals not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence; awarding organizations' standing is not sufficient.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metClaimed on appeal but not substantively addressed with new evidence on motion; prior finding of non-eligibility stood.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles either not about the petitioner, lacked author identification, lacked proof of major media status, or post-dated the petition filing.
Judging the work of others
MetAAO previously found this criterion satisfied; not contested on motion.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metLetters from athletes showed individual impact but not major significance to the field as a whole; no evidence contributions elevated the events to significance.
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Not metPrior finding of non-eligibility; not overcome on motion.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metOrganizations petitioner founded/represented not shown to have distinguished or eminent reputations; affiliation with parent body insufficient.
Completed
I-140 filed
Bodybuilding promoter, manager, and coach
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2017-08-11
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO denied both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient new evidence or legal argument to overcome the prior dismissal finding that he met only one of the required three criteria.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.