EB-1ASports and athleticsIndividualDecided 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR032024_02B2203
AwardsMetJudgingMetMembershipNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A handball player and sports coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting eligibility under three criteria. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but found membership in a Russian federation did not require demonstrated outstanding achievement. Overall, the petitioner failed to establish sustained national acclaim and position at the very top of the field.
Official PDF
The official PDF link for this decision is being verified.
Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Awards · Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of awards criterion.
- Judging · Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of judging criterion.
What was missing
- Membership · Russian handball federation membership does not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Final merits · Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Met | Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of awards criterion. |
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner met plain language requirements of judging criterion. |
 Membership | Not met | Russian handball federation membership does not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed but did not assert eligibility on appeal; deemed waived. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed but did not assert eligibility on appeal; deemed waived. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed published materials but did not assert on appeal; deemed waived. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.