This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a competitive Greco-Roman wrestler who placed in tournaments in Uzbekistan and the U.S., proposed to continue competing in wrestling tournaments in the United States.
Field: Greco-Roman wrestling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) (academic record, license/certification, membership, and recognition criteria all rejected), and the record in the aggregate did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in wrestling.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the certificate he received was for general education”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner still has not established that his possession of this card and title is a license or certification for his occupation”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it does not indicate that these were significant contributions to the sport of wrestling”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“they do not demonstrate that these personal achievements constitute significant contributions to wrestling as a whole”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the article simply mentions him as one of the wrestlers trained by the main subject of the article”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO never reached the national interest waiver prongs because the Petitioner failed to establish threshold eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability (failing all four contested evidentiary criteria); the NIW analysis is expressly deemed 'moot' and the Director's NIW denial is simply adopted and affirmed without independent Dhanasar prong analysis.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral