This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight required evidentiary criteria for O-1A classification. Specifically, neither the membership criterion nor the published materials criterion was satisfied.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An equestrian eventing business petitioned for O-1A nonimmigrant status for its trainer, claiming extraordinary ability in equestrian eventing. SCOPS denied the petition for failure to meet at least three of eight required evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO reviewed two of the four claimed criteria — membership in USEF/USEA and published materials — and found neither satisfied. Competing at the Preliminary level (fifth of seven levels) did not demonstrate outstanding achievements, and competition result listings mentioning the Beneficiary among hundreds of competitors did not constitute published material 'about' her. Because the Beneficiary could not satisfy even two criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits or totality-of-evidence analysis.
What failed: 1. Membership in USEF and USEA at the Preliminary competition level was insufficient — the Petitioner did not show that achieving this level requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. 2. Competition result listings that merely named the Beneficiary among hundreds of competitors did not qualify as published material 'about' her, and the websites were not shown to be major trade, professional, or major media publications.
Takeaway: For O-1A petitions in athletic fields, membership evidence must show that the specific membership tier held by the beneficiary requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts — not merely participation. Published material must be specifically focused on the individual and her work, not competition result lists, and must appear in qualifying major publications.
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 O-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Membership in USEF and USEA at the Preliminary competition level was insufficient — the Petitioner did not show that achieving this level requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts
- Competition result listings that merely named the Beneficiary among hundreds of competitors did not qualify as published material 'about' her, and the websites were not shown to be major trade, professional, or major media publications.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metMembership in USEF and USEA at Preliminary competition level did not constitute outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts
Published material about the person
Not metHorse trial and event results listing Beneficiary among hundreds of competitors did not constitute published material 'about' the Beneficiary; publications also not shown to be major trade/professional media
Completed
I-129 filed
Equestrian eventing trainer
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-03-17
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight required evidentiary criteria for O-1A classification. Specifically, neither the membership criterion nor the published materials criterion was satisfied.
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.