Gymnastics Trampoline And Tumbling Coach

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the required three out of ten EB-1A criteria. While the AAO found that the Petitioner met the 'judging' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) by providing evidence of participation as a judge at the Tokyo Olympics (July 2021) and the 2014 Asian Championships, the Petitioner did not satisfy the 'memberships' (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)), 'published material' (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), or 'original contributions' (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)) criteria. Specifically, evidence for memberships lacked translator certifications, proof of outstanding achievement requirements, or formal membership documents. Published material lacked authors, was not substantially about the Petitioner, or was published after the filing date. Original contributions were not sufficiently demonstrated as being of major significance, with recommendation letters offering general praise rather than specific evidence of original impact.

The Petitioner satisfied only two criteria: judging and leading/critical role. He failed the awards criterion because the Centenary Medal was received after the filing date and other medals lacked evidence of being awarded to him personally. The original contributions criterion was not met as there was insufficient evidence that his teaching methodology had a major impact on the field beyond his own organization.

The Petitioner failed to meet the required three out of ten criteria, only satisfying the judging criterion. Evidence for published material was rejected because circulation data was sourced from unreliable Wikipedia entries or self-serving Facebook claims. The leading or critical role criterion was not met because the evidence pertained to activities after the priority date.