Published AAO appeal decisions

Horse racing trainer sought O-1A classification as an artist, but AAO determined the occupation (race horse training and business operation) falls within business or athletics, not the arts. Petitioner self-petitioned, which is impermissible for O-1A. Appeal dismissed on multiple independent grounds.

An athlete claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, and published material. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding the petitioner satisfied no criterion fully. Awards did not meet all evidentiary elements; membership was singular not plural; publications lacked proper scope and authorship evidence.

A tennis coach and fitness trainer claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner failed to present at least three types of qualifying evidence under the ten regulatory criteria. Applying Kazarian framework, without meeting the three-evidence threshold, AAO could not proceed to final merits determination. Petition dismissed.

A competitive ballroom dancer was proposed for O-1 classification as a person of extraordinary ability in the arts. The AAO found the field is really athletics, so the arts classification was wrong. It also found the arts criteria unmet and no evidence of dance instruction ability. The text provided has no ORDER line.

A kickboxing trainer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging. AAO found no awards nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in coaching, no evidence memberships based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and no reliable evidence of judging participation.

A badminton coach sponsored by an employer claimed extraordinary ability through awards and membership criteria. The AAO upheld denial, finding the single award insufficient under the plural requirement of the regulation and the coaching position inadequate for membership criterion, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold.

The beneficiary was an accompanying worker to an assistant horse trainer, sought under the O-2 classification rather than O-1A. The petitioner appealed the denial. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the related O-1 petition had been denied, so no O-1 alien existed for the beneficiary to support.

Former swimming competitor and coach claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim after 1993, no nationally recognized awards, and memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. Claimed criteria partially abandoned.

An equestrian rider sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner submitted ribbons and claimed membership but failed to establish three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A chess player petitioned for extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. The petitioner claimed to meet four criteria and submitted evidence of awards and a title. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one regulatory criterion (awards) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

A cricket player self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed awards but failed to document their national or international recognition or provide information about the conferring organizations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner did not establish the required level of acclaim.

A martial arts competitor self-petitioned for EB-1A classification, claiming at least three regulatory criteria were met. The AAO found the petitioner's awards, including runner-up finishes, were not documented as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The appeal was dismissed for failure to meet the evidentiary threshold.