Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedSports20242 criteria counted

Athletics (MMA)

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 (MMA) (Sports), 2024. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Published material about you, High remuneration; not counted: Awards, Membership, Original contribution.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

EB-1A criteria in this case

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.

Awards

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.

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.

Original contribution

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.

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:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Awardsnot counted52 of 105 (50%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Membershipnot counted18 of 94 (19%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about youcounted30 of 102 (29%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributionnot counted1 of 57 (2%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remunerationcounted7 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 demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish that his UFC win constituted a major international award, nor did he adequately demonstrate membership in a qualifying association or original contributions of major significance 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 August 8, 2024 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
Criteria claimed: 5, counted: 2 (Published material about you, High remuneration); not counted: Awards, Membership, Original contribution.
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

Same outcome in other fields

This is an anonymized public decision of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), shown for reference. Not legal advice and not a guarantee of your own outcome; every case is decided on its own facts.