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 martial arts (MMA) fighter and coach, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: martial arts / mixed martial arts fighting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner satisfied only one of six exceptional-ability criteria (recognition for achievements, (F)); AAO found criteria (B) experience, (C) license/certification, (D) salary/remuneration, and (E) professional membership unmet, and thus did not establish exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C)”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D)”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the record does not contain documentary evidence to support the Petitioner's assertions about his videos' viewership”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)”
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
AAO took administrative notice of the Petitioner's actual public YouTube channel statistics (about 3,000 total views) to directly contradict the Petitioner's unsupported claim of 200,000+ views, an unusually investigative footnote. The decision never reached the NIW prongs because it disposed of the case entirely at the threshold exceptional-ability stage.
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)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Katigbak
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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