This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner only established one of the required three evidentiary criteria (awards), failing to demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifications under the membership, published materials, and judging criteria.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
A skydiving center petitioned for an O-1A visa for a skydiving instructor, coach, and videographer from Chile. The AAO upheld the Director's denial, finding that only the awards criterion was satisfied (third place at a national championship). The membership criterion failed because the petitioner did not show the associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The published materials criterion failed because magazine appearances were mere result listings rather than articles about the beneficiary, and the publications were not established as major trade publications. The judging criterion failed because there was no corroborating evidence the beneficiary actually served as a judge. Because the petitioner could not reach the three-criteria threshold, the AAO dismissed the appeal without conducting a final merits analysis.
What worked: Proof of a third-place finish at a national parachuting championship satisfied the awards criterion. This was the only criterion the petitioner successfully established.
What failed: 1) Membership evidence failed because the petitioner did not show associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts — certifications and a training course were not qualifying association memberships. 2) Published material failed because magazine appearances were results listings, not articles about the beneficiary, and the publications were not shown to be major trade publications. 3) Judging comparable evidence failed because no corroborating proof showed the beneficiary actually judged; the petitioner also failed to show the criterion did not apply to his occupation. 4) New criteria and new evidence first raised on appeal were not considered.
Takeaway: For O-1A athletics petitions, petitioners must present comprehensive documentation for each criterion before the Director — raising new criteria or submitting new evidence only on appeal is too late and will be rejected. For the membership criterion especially, petitioners should obtain explicit documentation of the association's membership requirements demonstrating that outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts are required.
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
- Proof of a third-place finish at a national parachuting championship satisfied the awards criterion
- This was the only criterion the petitioner successfully established.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- 1) Membership evidence failed because the petitioner did not show associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts — certifications and a training course were not qualifying association memberships
- 2) Published material failed because magazine appearances were results listings, not articles about the beneficiary, and the publications were not shown to be major trade publications
- 3) Judging comparable evidence failed because no corroborating proof showed the beneficiary actually judged
- the petitioner also failed to show the criterion did not apply to his occupation
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
MetBeneficiary placed third in a national parachuting championships category; both Director and AAO agreed this criterion was met.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metPetitioner failed to show that associations required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts; certifications and training course participation did not constitute association membership under the regulation.
Published material about the person
Not metMagazine appearances were results listings rather than articles about the Beneficiary; Facebook posts and YouTube video did not qualify as major trade publications or major media; none identified authors.
Judging the work of others
Not metPetitioner argued comparable evidence via claimed judging at a 2016 State Championships, but failed to provide corroborating documentation that the Beneficiary actually participated as a judge; also failed to show the criterion did not apply to his occupation.
Completed
I-129 filed
Skydiving instructor, coach, and videographer
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-09-08
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner only established one of the required three evidentiary criteria (awards), failing to demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifications under the membership, published materials, and judging criteria.
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.