Published AAO appeal decisions

A badminton club petitions for an O-1A visa for a coach. The applicant demonstrated national championships, published media coverage, and national team membership. AAO remanded to determine whether three criteria are satisfied and whether coaching represents continuation of extraordinary ability in athletics.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.

Squash professional petitioned by club for O-1A visa. Service center denied for failing to meet evidentiary criteria. Petitioner's appeal dismissed summarily for lack of specificity. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner provided no new facts or evidence, and appellant brief was not properly filed with AAO.

The beneficiary is a boxer and trainer for whom an agent sought O-1A classification. The petitioner claimed membership, original contributions through comparable evidence, and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because membership and contributions were not established, so three criteria were not satisfied, and it reserved the final merits.

A tennis training center petitioned for a tennis coach under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not provide a valid contract or summary of an oral agreement, since the submitted agreement was undated and unsigned by the beneficiary. The remaining grounds of denial were not reached.

An agent petitioned for a master automotive technician and test driver for O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The beneficiary met only the awards criterion. Published material criterion was withdrawn because foreign articles were not shown to be in major media. Judging criterion was withdrawn due to insufficient corroboration. With only one criterion met, the three-criterion threshold was not satisfied.

International youth hockey program sought O-1A visa for head coach. Beneficiary met only one of eight evidentiary criteria (high salary). AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner failed to demonstrate three required criteria and thus could not reach totality evaluation of extraordinary ability in athletics.

Fitness company petitioned for bodybuilder beneficiary as O-1A extraordinary ability. Director denied on contract sufficiency and failure to meet three of eight criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding serious errors and discrepancies in employment contract, including two contracts for same period and unresolved inconsistencies, made appeal dispositive without reaching other grounds.

A soccer camp petitions for O-1A for a beneficiary transitioning from professional soccer player to coach. The AAO remanded because the Director improperly excluded athletic achievements in assessing extraordinary ability and erred in rejecting the gold medal as major award without requesting additional evidence on coaching eligibility.

A sports management company petitioned for a sumo wrestler seeking O-1A extraordinary ability. The applicant met only the awards criterion. Claims of membership in elite associations and published media coverage failed because the federation membership lacked documented outstanding achievement requirements and articles lacked proper attribution. Fewer than three criteria were satisfied so appeal was dismissed.

Employer petitioned for basketball player for O-1A classification. Petition failed on contract documentation, event description, and evidentiary criteria requirements. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner waived contest of contract and event grounds and AAO declined to reach the evidentiary criterion argument.

A martial arts academy sought O-1A extension for an MMA athletic trainer. The AAO remanded, finding the director erred in concluding the RFE response lacked supporting documentation; FedEx tracking and copies of submitted exhibits proved delivery of a three-pound package, warranting reconsideration of substantive eligibility criteria.

A dance studio sought O-1 classification for a competitive dancer, choreographer and coach under the arts standard. The AAO found the work was athletic, not artistic, and that the evidence met only one of the arts criteria. This is an O-1B arts-standard filing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Motion on P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition for boxer. Petitioner sought to reopen appeal of Service Center denial. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and motion to reconsider as lacking new facts addressing distinguished competition and international reputation requirements.

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.

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.

Fitness management company petitioned for O-1A classification for bodybuilder after initial approval was revoked. AAO dismissed appeal, affirming revocation because beneficiary met only awards criterion and lacked sufficient documentation of membership, publications, and legitimate high salary evidence.

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.

An athlete management business sought to extend O-2 status for two support workers accompanying a professional athlete holding O-1 status, working as content creators and media strategists. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the record did not show substantial experience with critical skills integral to the athlete's performance, and credibility concerns arose.