Swimming coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner's athlete accomplishments do not establish coach expertise and no qualifying evidence under three categories was submitted. Dismissed for failure to meet antecedent regulatory requirement.

A swimming coach claimed extraordinary ability based on prior athletic accomplishments and coaching experience. The AAO held that petitioner's own competitive awards could not satisfy criteria for coaching, student awards were not documented, and petitioner failed to meet the requisite three evidentiary categories under Kazarian.

A professional baseball player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed and met four criteria: awards, published material, critical role, and high salary. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognized achievements, qualifying him as among the small percentage at the top of professional baseball.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met one of ten criteria but failed to demonstrate at least three. AAO held petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim or comparable evidence meeting regulatory standards; major league performance alone insufficient.