Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Soccer coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held although petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria, evidence demonstrated only past national acclaim in Trinidad and Tobago with no recent materials, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A professional wrestler sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver. The AAO found none of the claimed evidentiary criteria satisfied, including license, membership and recognition, and no advanced degree status. Because the threshold classification failed, the waiver question was treated as moot and 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 sports coordinator and trainer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver under Dhanasar. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the proposed endeavor lacked demonstrated national importance, despite addressing the important issue of childhood obesity. The petitioner failed to show the work would impact U.S. soccer or public health broadly or generate substantial positive economic effects.

Professional freestyle wrestler seeks NIW for EB-2 advanced degree classification. Proposed competing and coaching for university wrestling club to increase U.S. athletic competitiveness. AAO dismissed appeal, finding proposed endeavor lacks national importance despite substantial merit; evidence showed petitioner's skills and value but no documentation of prospective impact on sport broadly or significant employment or economic benefits.

A sailing instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, with the director finding neither a major internationally recognized award nor three evidentiary criteria shown. On appeal the petitioner submitted letters but identified no error of law or fact in the denial, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining the underlying evidence.

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.

An international athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on a one-time major award. The AAO found his European Tour Grand Final victory was not a major internationally recognized award qualifying as one-time achievement and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.

A martial arts athlete self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards lacked national/international recognition outside one association; membership status unsubstantiated; published material insufficient.

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.

Tennis coach seeking EB-2 NIW proposed operating a tennis academy. AAO held the specific endeavor lacks national importance despite assertions of tennis benefits and a product innovation; the record does not demonstrate national or global implications within the field or substantial positive economic effects beyond the business.

A rhythmic gymnast sought extraordinary ability classification under EB-1A. She claimed three criteria: lesser awards, published material, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet any criterion because her awards lacked documented national or international recognition, her media coverage was insufficient, and she presented no evidence of original contributions of major significance.

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.

A soccer player met four initial extraordinary ability criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his 15-year career and media coverage did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of professional soccer.

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.

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.

Coaching professional applied for EB-2 with advanced degree or exceptional ability, plus NIW. AAO found petitioner lacked five years progressive experience in specialty and failed to establish exceptional ability through required criteria. Decision did not reach NIW analysis because petitioner failed prerequisite EB-2 eligibility.

An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.

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.