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 judo/sambo athlete, coach, and referee, sought to continue his athletic and coaching career in the United States as a self-petitioner claiming exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: judo/sambo athletics and coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not claim advanced-degree professional status and failed to satisfy any of the six exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): no official academic record tied to the claimed field, unclear/unsubstantiated full-time occupational experience (confusing athlete, coach, captain, and referee roles), no valid license/certification, no salary evidence, inconsistent and uncorroborated claims of team membership, and unpersuasive/conclusory letters and inconsistent awards failing to show recognized achievement or contribution to the field. Because exceptional ability (or advanced degree) was not established, the NIW analysis was deemed moot.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“none of the documents state that the experience the Petitioner gained was full-time”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“there is no indication that these documents are licenses to practice the profession or certifications for a particular profession or occupation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the readership and reach of these publications has not been established outside of their own self-reported statements”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“we question the credibility of these awards overall”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- degree · discounted
“this education does not appear to be related to the claimed area of exceptional ability as an athlete”
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 devoted the entire decision to threshold exceptional-ability eligibility, finding pervasive credibility problems (mismatched dates, expired/undated documents, an incongruous newspaper report the AAO independently checked online) and never reached the Dhanasar prongs, deeming the NIW analysis moot once threshold EB-2 classification failed.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of V-K-
- 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