EB-1ASports and athleticsIndividualDecided 2019Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB272019_01B2203
High salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A jiu-jitsu coach claims extraordinary ability based on six criteria. The decision finds insufficient evidence for membership, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Comparable evidence arguments rejected. With no criteria met, extraordinary ability is not established.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- High salary · Uncertified tax returns insufficient; martial arts instructor salaries not appropriate comparison basis.
- Leading or critical role · No documentation demonstrating critical nature of petitioner's role for organization.
- Membership · Affiliation with organization shown but no evidence of selection based on outstanding achievements by experts.
- Original contributions · No specific evidence identified; letters lack specifics and make unsupported assertions.
- Published material · Article lacks proper translation, does not mention petitioner, and author not identified.
- Final merits · Record does not support acclaim and recognition required for extraordinary ability classification.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Not met | Uncertified tax returns insufficient; martial arts instructor salaries not appropriate comparison basis. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | No documentation demonstrating critical nature of petitioner's role for organization. |
 Membership | Not met | Affiliation with organization shown but no evidence of selection based on outstanding achievements by experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | No specific evidence identified; letters lack specifics and make unsupported assertions. |
 Published material | Not met | Article lacks proper translation, does not mention petitioner, and author not identified. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not support acclaim and recognition required for extraordinary ability classification. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.