This appeal was fully successful
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria (judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role) and demonstrated extraordinary ability as a gymnastics coach. The Director's denial was reversed after new evidence was submitted on appeal and in response to an AAO-issued RFE.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The Texas Service Center denied an EB-1A petition filed by a Chinese gymnastics coach, finding he failed to meet any of the ten evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the petitioner submitted new evidence including a letter listing six national competitions where he judged, and the AAO also issued its own RFE on the leading/critical role criterion not addressed by the Director. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: actual judging participation at national competitions, expert contribution to China's authoritative national gymnastics training syllabus, and a critical coaching role at a nationally distinguished sports academy. Conducting a final merits determination under the Kazarian framework, the AAO concluded the petitioner had risen to the very top of his field and sustained the appeal. The case highlights the importance of addressing all ten criteria and supplementing the record on appeal.
What worked: Evidence of actual judging at six named national competitions (beyond merely holding a license) was decisive for the judging criterion. The petitioner's role as an expert contributor to China's authoritative national gymnastics training syllabus — chosen among only 23 experts — established an original contribution of major significance. Documentation of a sustained coaching career producing national and international champions, including an Olympic-level athlete, at a nationally prominent sports academy supported both the leading role criterion and the final merits determination.
What failed: The Director's denial was fully reversed, so no evidence failed at the AAO level. However, the initial petition lacked sufficient proof of actual judging participation (as opposed to licensure only), and did not adequately develop the leading/critical role criterion, which the AAO had to raise independently via RFE.
Takeaway: Holding a judging license alone is insufficient — petitioners must document specific competitions or events where they actually judged. Athletes and coaches should also proactively address the leading/critical role criterion with evidence about the organization's reputation and their specific indispensable contributions, as this criterion was entirely overlooked in the initial submission and denial.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- Evidence of actual judging at six named national competitions (beyond merely holding a license) was decisive for the judging criterion
- The petitioner's role as an expert contributor to China's authoritative national gymnastics training syllabus — chosen among only 23 experts — established an original contribution of major significance
- Documentation of a sustained coaching career producing national and international champions, including an Olympic-level athlete, at a nationally prominent sports academy supported both the leading role criterion and the final merits determination.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Director's denial was fully reversed, so no evidence failed at the AAO level
- However, the initial petition lacked sufficient proof of actual judging participation (as opposed to licensure only), and did not adequately develop the leading/critical role criterion, which the AAO had to raise independently via RFE.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
Reversed in their favorDirector initially acknowledged the judging license but then denied this criterion saying it only showed qualification to judge, not actual participation. On appeal, a letter from the gymnastics association listing six national competitions where petitioner served as judge was submitted, and AAO found the criterion met.
Original contributions of major significance
Reversed in their favorPetitioner participated as a gymnastics expert in compiling the official Chinese national gymnastics training syllabus, a major authoritative publication. The 2009 version replaced the 1989 version; only 23 experts were selected. AAO found this constitutes an athletic contribution of major significance.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorAAO issued an RFE on this criterion (not addressed by Director) and found petitioner serves as one of four head gymnastics coaches at a distinguished national sports institution, the only one to have trained an Olympic-level athlete. Gymnastics accounts for four of the school's eight Olympic gold medals.
Letter from gymnastics association president listing six national competitions where petitioner served as judge
Category IV judging license issued by the national gymnastics authority since 2009
Documentation of petitioner's expert contribution to the official Chinese national gymnastics training syllabus
Letters from former student (Olympic medalist) crediting petitioner's coaching with his success
News article describing petitioner's discovery and recruitment of a current national team gymnast
List of coaching accomplishments from the school detailing students' national and international competition results from 1995 to 2012
Evidence that the school is a national key sports institution with a distinguished reputation for producing elite athletes
No specific evidence was explicitly rejected by the AAO; the Director's rejection of evidence was reversed on appeal
Director found the judging license showed only qualification to judge but not actual participation, ignoring or not awaiting appeal-stage evidence of six national competitions where petitioner judged.
Director failed to address the leading/critical role criterion (criterion viii), which the AAO had to raise via its own RFE.
Director found no criteria satisfied despite acknowledging the judging license in an RFE as satisfying that criterion, then reversing that finding in the denial.
Completed
I-140 filed
Gymnastics coach at a prominent Chinese national sports institution
Completed
Director, Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2016-04-20
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria (judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role) and demonstrated extraordinary ability as a gymnastics coach. The Director's denial was reversed after new evidence was submitted on appeal and in response to an AAO-issued RFE.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee