Published AAO appeal decisions

Gymnastics coach sought extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria: awards, published material, and judging. AAO sustained criteria analysis but dismissed on final merits, finding acclaim was based on past athletic career decades earlier, not sustained coaching achievements at required level.

Pole dance instructor and performer petitioned for O-1A classification through talent agency. AAO held beneficiary did not meet evidentiary criteria: competition awards lacked significance in field, no published material in major media, and prior performances did not constitute lead roles in distinguished events with established reputations.

A professional bridge player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: awards, judging, and published material. The AAO found awards met but reversed the Director on judging and rejected published material as not meeting the regulatory standard. With only one criterion met, the appeal was dismissed.

A weightlifter claiming extraordinary ability in athletics satisfied only the awards criterion. The AAO rejected membership, judging, published material, and original contributions claims, finding the petitioner met only two of three required criteria and lacked the sustained international acclaim needed.

A kickboxer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria but the AAO found only one met: awards. Membership, published material, judging, and critical role were all rejected for insufficient documentation or failure to meet regulatory requirements. The petition was dismissed.