Athletics: individual sport
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish original contributions of major significance, so the record did not show three criteria.
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
An athlete in an individual sport appealed the denial of an extraordinary ability petition. On appeal he relied on three criteria: a lesser prize, published material and original contributions of major significance. The AAO found that the contributions claimed, which centered on helping build facilities and an academy and on a record score, did not show major significance in the field as a whole. Because the contributions criterion was not satisfied and only three criteria had been claimed, it reserved the remaining criteria and dismissed the appeal.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards | Not reached | |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not reached | |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not met | The events claimed are not sufficient to constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. |
Why the AAO decided this way
- On appeal the petitioner claimed three criteria: a lesser prize, published material, and original contributions of major significance.
- The Director had found the lesser prize criterion established, but the AAO's own analysis addressed only the contributions criterion.
- The petitioner's efforts to help establish a facility and academy appear to have helped the sport grow in one country, but he did not sufficiently explain a wider impact on the field.
- The claimed record achievement was not adequately explained as a major contribution, and the record did not sufficiently show that it occurred before the petition was filed, since the articles reporting it were published months afterward.
- Because the petitioner had claimed only three criteria and did not satisfy this one, the AAO reserved the remaining criteria and did not reach a final merits determination.
Authorities cited
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516 (BIA 2015)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021)
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