Fitness Trainer And Instructor

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.

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.

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 failed to establish a one-time achievement, as his 'Master of Sport' award related to his athletic career, not coaching. He also did not meet the awards criterion because his claimed awards were as an athlete, and the 'National Coach' title was obtained after the petition filing. The membership criterion was not met as evidence did not show the association required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts. The published material criterion was not satisfied due to partial translations, missing author information, relevance to his athletic career, and lack of proof of 'major media' status. Consequently, the Petitioner did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria.