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 dance studio sought O-1 arts classification for a competitive ballroom dancer who would compete and teach. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It found the field is athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts evidentiary criteria unmet and no showing that instruction falls within his area of ability.

A sculptor seeks O-1A visa. The decision affirms dismissal of the appeal on a motion to reconsider, finding the petitioner failed to meet evidentiary criteria for awards or critical roles, did not submit qualifying comparable evidence, and provided insufficient detail about employment terms and scheduled activities.

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 boxing gym petitioned for an O-1A visa for a boxer claiming extraordinary ability in athletics. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to provide required written advisory opinion consultation and did not demonstrate three of eight evidentiary criteria, with evidence also deficient in translations.

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.

Fashion model agency petitions for beneficiary model for O-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied based on falsified document submission. AAO found petitioner resolved falsification concerns and remanded for substantive review of extraordinary ability claims.

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.