Published AAO appeal decisions

A tennis academy petitioned for a coaching professional seeking O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. The applicant claimed awards and membership criteria based on scholarships and organization participation but the AAO found neither satisfied the regulatory threshold. The appeal was dismissed because fewer than three evidentiary criteria were met and overall evidence did not demonstrate the small percentage at the field's top.

A Brazilian jiu-jitsu gym petitioned for O-1 classification for a jiu-jitsu coach. The AAO dismissed, finding the beneficiary failed to meet three evidentiary criteria: awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, memberships did not require recognized expert evaluation, and published materials were instructional videos rather than professional publications.

A taekwondo studio petitioned for O-1A classification for a taekwondo master. The petitioner claimed awards and membership criteria but failed to establish either through sufficient evidence. The decision also found no proper contract and itinerary for the requested employment period. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three of eight criteria.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A fencing club petitioned for a fencing coach's O-1A classification. The beneficiary claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing awards, coaching accomplishments, and refereeing experience. The AAO found only the judging criterion met; awards predated his coaching career and student achievements did not satisfy his own recognition requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Tennis academy sought O-1A classification for beneficiary tennis coach. AAO found beneficiary lacked major international award and failed to satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria, particularly regarding awards under comparable evidence standard and membership in qualifying associations.