EB-1ASports and athleticsIndividualDecided February 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB102026_03B2203
JudgingMetMembershipMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A powerlifting coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three initial criteria. The AAO found he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of his field because his judging experience lacked prestige, his published articles received no citations, and his accomplishments were insufficiently documented.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Petitioner satisfied judging criterion; AAO found it met but lacked prestige and consistency.
- Membership · Petitioner satisfied membership criterion; AAO found it met but insufficient for sustained acclaim.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; AAO found it met but articles lacked citations.
What was missing
- Final merits · AAO found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not among small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner satisfied judging criterion; AAO found it met but lacked prestige and consistency. |
 Membership | Met | Petitioner satisfied membership criterion; AAO found it met but insufficient for sustained acclaim. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; AAO found it met but articles lacked citations. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed by petitioner; AAO reserved this criterion as only three criteria required. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed by petitioner; AAO reserved this criterion as only three criteria required. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed by petitioner; AAO reserved this criterion as only three criteria required. |
 Final merits | Not met | AAO found petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim and is not among small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.