Athletics: competitive swimming
The AAO dismissed the appeal; although it found the awards and leading or critical role criteria met, it withdrew the two criteria SCOPS had accepted, leaving only two satisfied.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
The petitioner, a competitive swimmer, ended up with two satisfied criteria on appeal, the same number SCOPS had counted, but not the same two. The AAO credited her with the awards criterion and the leading or critical role criterion, both of which SCOPS had rejected, but it withdrew SCOPS' favorable findings on membership and published material. On membership, the record did not establish the expertise of the officials who chose national team members; on published material, the articles were incomplete, mostly passing mentions, and from a site not shown to be major media. Two criteria fell short of the required three, so the appeal was dismissed without a final merits analysis.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards | Met | Therefore, the Petitioner has established that she meets this criterion, and we withdraw SCOPS' |
| (ii) Membership requiring outstanding achievement | Not met | We therefore withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not met | Therefore, we also withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Met | evidence, the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that she performed in a leading and critical role |
| (x) Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached | not contest SCOPS' decision relating to these criteria on appeal or otherwise refer to them in her appeal brief |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO found that medals from competitive swimming events established receipt of nationally and internationally recognized awards, reversing SCOPS on that criterion.
- It also found that detailed letters from coaches and evidence of the program's reputation showed a leading and critical role as team captain for a distinguished swimming program.
- However, the AAO withdrew the membership finding because the record did not show that the people who selected national team members were recognized national or international experts, and it did not document her results at the qualifying event.
- The AAO also withdrew the published material finding because several articles lacked an author or date, most mentioned the petitioner only briefly in competition results, and the website's traffic figures were not placed in context to show major media status.
- With only two criteria satisfied, the AAO did not reach a final merits determination.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012)
- Kumar v. Dir. of U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. CV RDB-23-2251, 2024 WL 1374794 (D. Md. Apr. 1, 2024)
- Javakhadze v. Mayorkas, No. 3:21-CV-00617-E, 2023 WL 8037730 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2023)
- Nagaiah v. Allen, 2025 WL 1508028 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2025)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary