All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner provided evidence of medals as an athlete, these awards were not established as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. Membership in taekwondo associations did not demonstrate a requirement for outstanding achievements, and published material lacked author information and failed to establish the media as 'major' publications. The AAO found the petitioner only met the 'judging' criterion, falling short of the required three criteria.

The Petitioner met only 2 of the 10 criteria (judging and display), failing to meet the minimum requirement of 3. Specifically, published materials in The Himalayan Times and World of Women were not shown to be major media or primarily about the Petitioner's work. Evidence for high remuneration was insufficient due to a lack of tax records and the use of non-synchronous salary comparison data (2023 data compared to 2013-2020 earnings).

The Petitioner only satisfied one criterion (published material) out of the required three. The judging criterion was withdrawn because there was no evidence of actual participation, and the membership criterion was not met as the Petitioner failed to provide bylaws showing that membership required outstanding achievements judged by experts. Additionally, the original contributions criterion was not met because the testimonial letters did not demonstrate a major impact on the field as a whole.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only satisfied two criteria: scholarly articles and judging. The awards were deemed student-level and lacked national recognition; memberships did not require outstanding achievements; and expert letters failed to demonstrate that the research had 'major significance' or widespread impact in the field.