Athletics (Gymnastics)
AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Athletics (Gymnastics) (Sports), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 1 were counted: Awards; not counted: Membership, High remuneration.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 1 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot counted
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
Why these criteria usually go uncounted
The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.
Membership
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.
High remuneration
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.
The Sports field in the database: 133 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 17 remanded, 113 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | counted | 52 of 105 (50%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 18 of 94 (19%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 7 of 28 (25%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Sports appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to establish a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the alternate criteria. Specifically, the medals won were not considered major awards, membership in the national team was not sufficiently documented as requiring outstanding achievement, and the salary was not demonstrably high relative to others in the field.
The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.
Full AAO decision of December 31, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 1 (Awards); not counted: Membership, High remuneration.
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Athletics (Gymnastics)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Athletics (Gymnastics)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Athletics (Gymnastics)appeal dismissed, 2020
- Athletics (MMA)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Athletics (Tennis)appeal dismissed, 2023
- Education (specifically, teaching/coaching/speaking in a movement and meditation discipline)case remanded, 2022
- Urban Game Designcase remanded, 2024