Equestrian sport: coaching and training
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner had not satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, after withdrawing SCOPS' findings on the two criteria it had accepted.
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 equestrian trainer and coach appealed after SCOPS found she met two criteria through comparable evidence. Instead of adding criteria, the AAO took both away: it held that awards won by riders and horses she trained are not comparable to her own awards, and that articles written by others quoting her advice are not her own scholarly articles. Because she plans to coach rather than compete and the record did not show recent acclaim as an athlete, her earlier national team experience could not support any criterion. The AAO reserved her remaining claims and the final merits question and dismissed the appeal.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards | Not met | Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination regarding this criterion and conclude that the Petitioner has not met its requirements. |
| (ii) Membership requiring outstanding achievement | Not met | For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner does not meet this evidentiary |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not reached | |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Not met | and conclude that the Petitioner does not meet its requirements through comparable evidence. |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not reached | |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- Because the petitioner intends to work as a coach and trainer, not as a competing athlete, and the record did not show recent acclaim as an athlete, the AAO considered only her coaching and training achievements.
- The AAO withdrew SCOPS' acceptance of the awards criterion, finding she had not shown how awards won by riders and horses she trained are comparable to her own receipt of a prize or award.
- For membership, she had not shown that her students' team selections are comparable to her own membership, or that taking part in competitions amounts to membership in an association.
- The AAO also withdrew SCOPS' acceptance of the scholarly articles criterion, because the articles listed other people as authors and were described as advice for riders of all levels rather than scholarly work.
- With fewer than three criteria possible, the AAO reserved the published-material and leading-role claims and the 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)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022)
- Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
- Mussarova v. Garland, 562 F. Supp. 3d 837 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
- Integrity Gymnastics & Pure Power Cheerleading, LLC v. USCIS, 131 F. Supp. 3d 721 (S.D. Ohio 2015)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Nagaiah v. Allen, 784 F. Supp. 3d 798 (E.D. Pa. 2025)
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