This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria required for O-1A classification. Only the judging criterion was found met; membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria all failed.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A martial arts studio filed an I-129 O-1A petition for a taekwondo instructor, claiming extraordinary ability in athletics. The California Service Center Director denied the petition, finding only the judging criterion met. On appeal, the AAO reviewed four additional claimed criteria — ATA Legacy Instructor membership, published media coverage, original contributions, and high salary — and found each unsupported. Key deficiencies included missing certified translations, failure to show a local newspaper or Facebook page constitutes major media, and inability to specifically attribute business expansion to the Beneficiary's contributions. Because the Petitioner could not clear the threshold of three criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination on overall acclaim.
What worked: Evidence of participation in judging at competitions and tournaments was accepted, satisfying one criterion.
What failed: 1) ATA Legacy Instructor membership was unsupported — the only corroborating document was about judging certifications, not instructor membership requirements. 2) Published material claims failed because no proof of major media status was provided for the newspaper, and the Facebook post lacked required translation, title, and author. 3) Original contribution claims failed due to missing certified translations of key documents and the employer letter not crediting the Beneficiary for specific contributions. 4) The high salary claim was abandoned on appeal, and a new contract referenced was never actually submitted.
Takeaway: Petitioners must provide corroborating third-party evidence — not just certificates — to prove that membership organizations require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and all foreign-language documents must include certified English translations. New evidence or changed circumstances cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal.
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
- Evidence of participation in judging at competitions and tournaments was accepted, satisfying one criterion.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- 1) ATA Legacy Instructor membership was unsupported — the only corroborating document was about judging certifications, not instructor membership requirements
- 2) Published material claims failed because no proof of major media status was provided for the newspaper, and the Facebook post lacked required translation, title, and author
- 3) Original contribution claims failed due to missing certified translations of key documents and the employer letter not crediting the Beneficiary for specific contributions
- 4) The high salary claim was abandoned on appeal, and a new contract referenced was never actually submitted.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metPetitioner claimed eligibility under awards criterion but AAO declined to reach it since threshold of three criteria could not be met regardless.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metATA Legacy Level 3 Certified Instructor membership not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts; corroborating evidence was about judging certifications, not instructor membership requirements.
Published material about the person
Not metOnline article from redacted newspaper lacked proof of major media status; Facebook post lacked English translation, title, and author as required.
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO did not disturb that finding.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metSchool expansion claims lacked certified translations, did not attribute contributions specifically to Beneficiary, and failed to show significance beyond a single local employer.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner did not contest Director's findings; attempted to introduce new employment contract on appeal but did not submit it, and AAO declined to consider new evidence on appeal.
Completed
I-129 filed
Martial arts instructor and taekwondo educator
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-05-26
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria required for O-1A classification. Only the judging criterion was found met; membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria all failed.
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.