Published AAO appeal decisions

Table tennis coach claimed extraordinary ability. Petitioner offered evidence of students' achievements and coaching recognition. AAO held petitioner did not meet awards criterion as student success does not constitute petitioner's receipt of prizes, and youth rankings insufficient; other criteria not reached.

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 fencing coach claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing achievements and coaching students. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no nationally recognized coaching awards, no qualifying published material about the petitioner, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in coaching.

Ice figure skater sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met awards criterion but failed membership criterion because associations did not require outstanding achievement. Final merits analysis found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at very top of field.

A gymnast/acrobat claimed one-time achievement through second-place finishes and appealed the director's denial. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that second-place awards do not qualify as major, internationally recognized awards, and the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence types.

A taekwondo instructor appealed denial of EB-1A classification, claiming awards, memberships, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding competitions not nationally recognized, coaching role not qualifying membership, and petitioner failing to meet the three-criteria threshold needed for extraordinary ability.

Self-represented karate practitioner and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria, rejecting the one-time award claim due to inconsistent documentation and insufficient evidence of the competition's prestige at the time of competition.

The petitioner, apparently a competitor in a team-based field, sought extraordinary ability classification, relying on awards and on membership in teams and committees. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the award evidence was not legible primary documentation and the team and committee roles did not satisfy the membership requirements.

A competitive performer sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO held that claimed awards did not satisfy plural requirement and lacked primary documentation; committee memberships did not establish elite status. Appeal dismissed for insufficient regulatory criteria evidence.

Gymnastics coach sought EB-1A classification. AAO upheld denial, finding coach did not meet awards, membership, or published material criteria under plain language requirements and failed to establish sustained acclaim.

Netball athlete claimed extraordinary ability through team selections and awards. AAO held petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion and did not submit qualifying evidence under three or more regulatory categories, denying sustained acclaim.

Coach or manager in athletics sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found awards and membership criteria not met under plain language standards. Fewer than three criteria satisfied. Petitioner must demonstrate continued work in coaching expertise. Appeal dismissed.

Self-petitioner in athletics (boxer) failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Director found deficiency in awards, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria, and conducted final merits determination finding no extraordinary ability. Appeal summarily dismissed for general allegations without specific erroneous conclusions.

Self-petitioner in athletics (soccer player) submitted documentation for multiple criteria. AAO found awards criterion deficient in regulatory compliance, published material criterion failed due to missing author identification, and original contributions and final merits criteria not met. Appeal dismissed.

Ballroom dance competitor and teacher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting awards and published material criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding evidence insufficient to establish three qualifying categories and concluding petitioner's achievements did not demonstrate required sustained national or international acclaim.

Karate practitioner and coach filed self-petition claiming extraordinary ability through competition victory and four regulatory criteria. The AAO found the competition award was not major or internationally recognized, and the petitioner met none of the ten regulatory criteria. Petition dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier field status.

Professional light middleweight boxer claimed extraordinary ability with evidence of awards and national amateur titles. AAO dismissed because despite meeting awards criterion, the overall evidence does not demonstrate petitioner among the very top of the field at national or international level.

Wushu athlete and instructor petitioner failed to specifically address director's findings on appeal, merely reasserting achievements without responding to deficiencies. Director rejected awards, membership, publications, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal summarily for failure to identify erroneous conclusions and rejected combining athletic and coaching accomplishments as impermissible.

Fencing coach self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through six regulatory criteria. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three criteria under plain language: awards to students do not qualify, athlete membership does not satisfy coaching association requirement in plural form. Comparable evidence not available; petition dismissed.