Published AAO appeal decisions

Figure skating choreographer and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed seven criteria including membership, published material, scholarly articles and exhibitions. AAO held she met only judging criterion and failed to meet three-criterion threshold because membership lacked documentation, publications lacked translation compliance and scholarly article was not in qualifying venue.

A martial arts school petitioned for O-1 classification for a coach. The beneficiary met only one criterion (judging). The AAO affirmed dismissal because membership and published material criteria were not satisfied and beneficiary failed to establish at least three of eight required criteria for extraordinary ability.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria but established only two: awards and judging. On appeal, sought to add membership and leading role criteria but failed to meet either. AAO dismissed appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Performer from Russian national athletic team seeking extraordinary ability classification. Meets three evidentiary criteria but fails final merits analysis. Though petitioner had sustained international acclaim as athlete through 2014, he failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim as performer; earnings and lack of public distinction do not reflect extraordinary ability.

A skydiving center sought to employ a beneficiary as an O-1A nonimmigrant skydiving instructor. The beneficiary met only the awards criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria overall; the appeal was dismissed because the petitioner could not satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold.

Martial arts competitor and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied awards and judging criteria only. AAO rejected membership claim lacking expert recognition documentation and published material claim lacking proper attribution and venue. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate top-of-field extraordinary ability.

Beneficiary seeking EB-1A as athletic instruction school chief instructor and former competitor. AAO dismissed because beneficiary met only one of ten criteria (judging) when three required; lacks sustained recent national/international acclaim; record does not support extraordinary ability.

Horse breeding business petitioned for stallion manager as O-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but AAO found only one met. Comparable evidence for awards criterion rejected because petitioner failed to show criterion does not apply to occupation. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts studio petitioned for instructor beneficiary for O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. Beneficiary met only one of three required initial criteria and could not establish sustained national or international acclaim; appeal dismissed.

A cricket official and administrator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four evidentiary criteria including membership, judging, published material, and critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met zero criteria; membership and judging claims failed, and other claimed criteria were not reached.

Police officer and trainer in Brazil seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming jiu-jitsu medal and various professional achievements. AAO found only three criteria met but rejected petition at final merits stage, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A martial arts athlete competing in karate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he satisfied only two of three required criteria: judging and one other. Awards lacked national recognition; national team membership evidence was inconsistent regarding selection rigor.

A country club filed a motion to reopen and reconsider an O-1A denial for a tennis director. The AAO dismissed both motions for failure to meet procedural requirements: the motion lacked required statement about prior judicial proceedings and did not present proper cause, making merits review unnecessary.

A mountaineering guide and expedition leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected membership and declined to reach other criteria. Because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, appeal was dismissed.

A martial artist sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a motion to reconsider, finding the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three initial evidentiary criteria, satisfied none of the claimed criteria, and the motion merely restated prior arguments without showing legal error.

Martial arts athlete and instructor claimed three criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A wrestling coach claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence lacked comparative data showing he ranks among the very top coaches and that his media coverage and achievements did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A personal fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability based on work with one film production. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that she met only one criterion and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Martial arts athlete and coach in taekwondo, muay thai, and hapkido sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: national awards, published material, and judging. However, the final merits analysis concluded he lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

An MMA fighter competing in amateur and professional competitions claimed four criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, and displayed achievements. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only one criterion met and concluding the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A taekwondo school sought to extend O-1A classification for an athletic trainer with prior approvals. The AAO dismissed a motion to reconsider, holding that prior extensions do not bind current decisions and the beneficiary failed to demonstrate three of eight required criteria or a major internationally recognized award.

A boxer and kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met one criterion (awards) but failed to establish three required criteria overall. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and had not demonstrated the career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Rowing coach and former athlete claimed extraordinary ability in athletics. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required at final merits stage. Appeal dismissed because record did not establish recognition sufficient for EB-1A.