EB-1ASports and athleticsIndividualDecided October 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT062025_01B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Dance educator focused on ballroom dance curricula for people with disabilities seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet the required three of ten evidentiary criteria threshold: failed judging and leading/critical role criteria; two other claimed criteria not separately addressed because threshold was not satisfied.
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
- Awards · Petitioner indicated she had not received a major internationally recognized award required for this category.
- Judging · Petitioner did not contest SCOPS finding that she failed to meet judging criterion; matter deemed waived.
- Leading or critical role · Organizations lacked distinguished reputation; self-promotional website material and support letters insufficient to establish distinguished reputation requirement.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner indicated she had not received a major internationally recognized award required for this category. |
 Judging | Not met | Petitioner did not contest SCOPS finding that she failed to meet judging criterion; matter deemed waived. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Organizations lacked distinguished reputation; self-promotional website material and support letters insufficient to establish distinguished reputation requirement. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion claimed and presumably analyzed but not discussed separately in findings because three-criterion threshold not met. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion claimed and presumably analyzed but not discussed separately in findings because three-criterion threshold not met. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Not analyzed because petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial evidentiary criteria threshold; final merits analysis reserved. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.