Published AAO appeal decisions

A powerlifting coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three initial criteria. The AAO found he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of his field because his judging experience lacked prestige, his published articles received no citations, and his accomplishments were insufficiently documented.

Professional underwater rugby player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (awards, membership, published material), meeting the regulatory minimum. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim.

A rock climber sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, and judging criteria but failed to meet any. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding she did not establish the three criteria required and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or a position among the very top.

A hockey player from Russia self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification, having satisfied at least three initial criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence—youth and junior achievements, plus professional play in lower-tier leagues—failed to demonstrate he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A pole and aerial sport performer and instructor claimed four extraordinary ability criteria: awards, published material, judging and exhibitions. On service motion after litigation, the AAO withdrew the earlier awards finding because competition placements were unsupported or not shown to be nationally recognized. It dismissed the appeal, finding neither the threshold nor sustained acclaim established.

A fitness and wellness coordinator, formerly a professional soccer player, sought an EB-2 exceptional ability classification and a national interest waiver to run a children's health consulting and training company. The AAO withdrew the earlier exceptional ability finding because none of the claimed criteria were met, and reserved the Dhanasar prongs.