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 sought to work as a competitive athlete in international competitions and as a coach of other athletes in his sport.
Field: athletics (competitive sport and coaching) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, meeting none of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); no advanced degree claim was made.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record contains insufficient evidence to corroborate his full-time experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence to establish the basis for granting this title”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are not probative due to the insufficient explanations and analysis to support the authors' conclusions”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the author of the article does not suggest that the Petitioner's performance constitutes a "major ac[complishment] in the field"”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he did not supplement the record with additional evidence”
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 found the petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability requirement and declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW framework at all, calling further analysis unnecessary. The decision highlights use of boilerplate/regurgitated regulatory language (from the extraordinary-ability classification) in reference letters as evidence of non-independence, and notes inconsistencies between the petitioner's visa application (selling glasses, tax institute training) and his claimed decade of full-time athletic experience.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
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