This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required ten evidentiary criteria (lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards), falling short of the minimum three needed. The final merits determination was not reached.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a Brazilian competitive rower, sought EB-1A classification but was denied by the Nebraska Service Center Director for failing to meet any of the ten evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO reversed on one criterion, finding that the petitioner's first-place finish in a 2016 ocean rowing race qualified as a nationally/internationally recognized award due to strong official documentation and international media coverage. However, the AAO upheld the denial on published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role criteria, finding the evidence insufficient across the board. Because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required three criteria, the appeal was dismissed without reaching a final merits determination or the 'continue work' issue.
What worked: The petitioner's 2016 ocean rowing race win succeeded because it was supported by official race results, corroborating letters from recognized rowing organizations, and verifiable international media coverage from major outlets including Outside magazine, CNBC, and Huffington Post.
What failed: Brazilian national competition medals were rejected due to inconsistent testimonial evidence and lack of official results from the governing body. Published material articles failed because they were about the team, not the individual petitioner. Letters supporting original contributions and leading roles used hyperbolic language without explaining specific impact on the sport, and the team captain claim was only asserted by counsel without corroboration.
Takeaway: Petitioners should submit official governing body results and contemporaneous media coverage for every claimed award, and ensure that letters of support specifically describe the impact and significance of contributions rather than using general praise. Published material must be primarily about the individual petitioner, not about a team or event the petitioner participated in.
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
- The petitioner's 2016 ocean rowing race win succeeded because it was supported by official race results, corroborating letters from recognized rowing organizations, and verifiable international media coverage from major outlets including Outside magazine, CNBC, and Huffington Post.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Brazilian national competition medals were rejected due to inconsistent testimonial evidence and lack of official results from the governing body
- Published material articles failed because they were about the team, not the individual petitioner
- Letters supporting original contributions and leading roles used hyperbolic language without explaining specific impact on the sport, and the team captain claim was only asserted by counsel without corroboration.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed the Director and found the petitioner's first place finish in the 2016 ocean rowing race met this criterion based on official race results, letters from USRowing and The Rowing Society, and international media coverage including Outside magazine, CNBC, and Huffington Post. Brazilian national medals were insufficient due to inconsistencies and lack of official results.
Published material about the person
Not metArticles from Huffington Post, Outside magazine, and CNBC were about the team, not the petitioner specifically. A Brazilian magazine article lacked a date and evidence of major media status. TV appearances lacked transcripts. Post-filing articles were not considered.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metWinning the ocean rowing race and setting a record was not found to constitute an original athletic contribution of major significance. Letters were hyperbolic and lacked specifics about impact on the sport.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metLetters from rowing clubs showed the petitioner was a valued member, not a leader or critical contributor. Team captain claim was made only by counsel, not substantiated. The race team was a temporary single-race entity, not an 'organization or establishment.'
Official race results for the 2016 ocean rowing race
Letters from USRowing and The Rowing Society confirming the international significance of the race win
International media coverage of the 2016 race win including Outside magazine, CNBC, Huffington Post, and Brazilian media outlets
Official website of the Brazilian rowing federation confirming the result
Photographs of medals without award certificates for Brazilian national competitions
Inconsistent testimonial letters about competition results (contradictory placement claims between petitioner and club letters)
Huffington Post article that was about the team race standings, not primarily about the petitioner
Outside magazine article in which the petitioner was not interviewed and only named as a team member
CNBC press release that only briefly mentioned the petitioner as a team member
Brazilian magazine Bem-estar article lacking publication date and proof of major media status
Unsubstantiated circulation figures from an unverified email source for Bem-estar magazine
Articles from Brazilian Rowing League and SupClub websites without evidence of major media status
TV appearance screenshots without transcripts
Post-filing articles not meeting the filing date eligibility requirement
Letters praising the petitioner's athletic talent and dedication without explaining original contributions of major significance
Counsel's assertions of team captain role not corroborated by the petitioner's own statements or club letters
Letters from race organizer and teammate about critical race role, where the temporary race team was not deemed an 'organization or establishment'
Director failed to acknowledge the petitioner's first place finish in the 2016 ocean rowing race when evaluating the lesser awards criterion, which the AAO found sufficient to meet that criterion.
Completed
I-140 filed
Competitive rower specializing in flat water, outrigger canoe, and ocean rowing endurance events
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-02-27
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required ten evidentiary criteria (lesser nationally/internationally recognized awards), falling short of the minimum three needed. The final merits determination was not reached.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee