How common are denied EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the fitness trainer industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The fitness trainer sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued

Fitness Trainer

Fitness Trainer · 2024-09-30

Decision Date

2024-09-30

This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

0 of 3 criteria met

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence (Not Met)

The Petitioner submitted certificates for a regional student bodybuilding competition and presentations at institutional conferences. The AAO found these awards were not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in fitness training, nor did they extend beyond the specific institution.

Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The Petitioner claimed his fitness training methodology was an original contribution. While clients praised it, the AAO found no evidence it impacted the field beyond individual clients or was widely implemented, thus not reaching major significance. Assertions of medical applications lacked credibility and support.

Display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases (Not Met)

The Petitioner asserted participation in amateur bodybuilding competitions met this criterion. The AAO determined bodybuilding competitions are not artistic in nature and did not relate to his work as a fitness trainer. Presentations at conferences were also not deemed comparable to artistic exhibitions and were not clearly identified as related to fitness training.

Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Not Met)

The Petitioner cited roles as a brand ambassador for S-T-LLC and involvement with I. The AAO found the brand ambassador role lacked quantified impact and focused on future activities, not past critical contributions. The university role lacked detail on impact and the writer's personal knowledge, and neither organization was shown to have a distinguished reputation.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability, specifically not demonstrating a major internationally recognized award or satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the Petitioner did not meet criteria for lesser awards (regional student bodybuilding, institutional conference presentations), original contributions of major significance (methodology not widely adopted beyond clients, medical applications lacked credibility), artistic exhibitions (bodybuilding competitions not artistic, presentations not comparable), or leading/critical role (brand ambassador role lacked quantified impact, university role lacked detail and impact evidence, organizations not shown to have distinguished reputation). No specific metrics were provided for met criteria as none were found to be met.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested further evidence regarding the national or international recognition of the Petitioner's awards. It also led to the submission of additional reference letters concerning the Petitioner's original contributions and a second letter from S-T-LLC's CEO to clarify his leading role. The Petitioner's responses were deemed insufficient to address the concerns.

RFE Targets

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellenceOriginal scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significancePerformance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation

Evidence

Evidence Types

Awards

Reference Letters Dependent

Conference Presentations

Original Contributions

Published Material

Evidence Submitted

certificates for regional student bodybuilding competition
certificates for presentations at conferences
two 'gratitude letters' from I and a local mayor
reference letters from clients (bodybuilders, health issues)
presentation about fitness training methodology
papers authored by the Petitioner published in a medical journal
agreement for brand ambassador role with S-T-LLC
letters from S-T-LLC CEO A-R-
letters from M-V-G- (chairman of the trade union bureau of students at I)

Similar Cases

Coach

Sports · Kazakhstan

USCIS EB-1A dismissed

2024-09-30

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Petitioner only met one of the ten regulatory criteria (judging) and did not establish the required three criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner's 'Diploma' and 'Letter of Appreciation' were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized awards. Memberships in the Kazakhstan Federation of Boxing (KFB) and the Oidene Hand-to-Hand Combat Federation (OHCF) did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. Original contributions, such as the 'Methodological Manual for Hand-to-Hand Fighting,' were not shown to be of major significance beyond the Petitioner's immediate sphere. The master class instruction was not considered an artistic exhibition, and the organizations for which the Petitioner claimed a leading role (OHCF, Ministry of Internal Affairs, State Security Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan) were not proven to have a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner also did not contest the Director's finding that he did not meet the high salary criterion.

Others

Others · Kazakhstan

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

2024-07-09

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the membership criterion was not met as the association's requirements were not based on outstanding achievements, and the published material and scholarly articles criteria failed because the Khabar 24 website was not proven to be major media. Additionally, her original contributions were deemed personal accomplishments rather than impacts of major significance to the field as a whole.

Athletic Trainer

Sports · Venezuela

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded

2024-09-06

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because the Director's unfavorable determinations regarding several evidentiary criteria did not specifically address all Petitioner's claims or evidence, and in some instances, did not adhere to USCIS regulations and policy guidance. Specifically, the Director mischaracterized the Petitioner's field by distinguishing 'coach' from 'trainer', improperly introduced derogatory information from outside the record without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut, and did not provide sufficient analysis for conclusions on original contributions and leading roles. The Director also failed to provide notice of evidentiary deficiencies for published materials.

Athlete

Sports · Kyrgyzstan

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

2024-08-02

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the judging criterion was met, citing insufficient evidence regarding the nature and level of judging activities. The published material criterion was also not met due to outdated viewership statistics for the media outlet and the author not being identified. The awards criterion was not addressed as it would not change the outcome, and the membership criterion was met but insufficient on its own.

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

More dismissed cases More Sports cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-30.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed

RFE Issued

Criteria Met 0 / 3

Evidence Types 5

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881

Success Rate 52.9%

Sustained 466

Dismissed 299

EB-1A Overview All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist