Combat sports: grappling athlete and coach
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the Petitioner had not met the awards, published-material or leading-role criteria and so had not shown three criteria; two other criteria were waived and one was reserved.
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
A grappling athlete and coach appealed SCOPS' denial of his EB-1A petition, which had found none of six claimed criteria satisfied. He pursued only four on appeal, and the AAO treated the other two as waived. It found the awards evidence lacked information about selectivity and recognition, the two identical online articles were not shown to be major media, and the letters did not establish a leading or critical role at an organization with a distinguished reputation. The high-salary criterion and final merits were reserved and the appeal dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards | Not met | For these reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation that satisfies this criterion. |
| (ii) Membership requiring outstanding achievement | Not reached | we consider these issue to be waived. |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Not met | not met his burden of proof to demonstrate his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). |
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Not reached | we consider these issue to be waived. |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner's evidence does not establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for certain |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Not reached | Therefore, we reserve and will not address |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The Petitioner did not indicate or establish a major, internationally recognized award, and SCOPS found none of his six claimed criteria satisfied; on appeal he pursued only four, so the AAO treated the membership and judging criteria as waived.
- For awards, he did not provide information about the criteria for the awards, their significance, the number of awardees or limits on competitors, and the record did not show national or international media coverage of the competitions or his placements.
- For published material, he did not show that two identical online articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media, and gave no circulation or viewership data for comparison.
- For the leading or critical role criterion, the letters did not establish a leading or critical role within the organization, and his claim that it is one of the largest and most respected institutions globally was uncorroborated.
- The AAO reserved the high-salary criterion and the final merits determination because fewer than three criteria were shown.
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)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
- Matter of D-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568 (BIA 2022)
- Nagaiah v. Allen, 2025 WL 1508028 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2025)
- Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799 (AAO 2012)
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