All Cases

The Petitioner failed to meet the membership criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) because the record did not establish that the associations required outstanding achievements of their members as judged by national or international experts. Since the Petitioner did not assert eligibility for criteria (iii) through (vii) or (ix) through (x), he could not reach the minimum of three criteria even if awards and leading roles were satisfied. Consequently, the record did not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim for EB-1A classification.

The Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. The record failed to establish a one-time major award or satisfaction of at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria.

The Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria, meeting only the prize criterion. The claim for original contributions was rejected because the impact of his snooker academy was limited to Pakistan rather than the field at large. Furthermore, evidence of his '147 break' record in the U.S. was inadmissible as it post-dated the filing of the petition.

The Petitioner failed to respond to specific evidentiary shortcomings identified in an RFE, rendering those arguments procedurally barred on appeal. Substantively, the record lacked evidence of a one-time major achievement or documentation satisfying at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate being part of the small percentage at the very top of the field or having a career of acclaimed work.

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is in the small percentage at the top of the field. While he met the plain language of three criteria, his major achievements (bronze medals at championships) occurred in 2005-2006, and recent evidence involved smaller state/regional competitions. Additionally, his coaching evidence lacked detail on student placements or significant professional impact.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the awards criterion was not met due to lack of translations and details on competition significance, and the membership criterion was not met because the entry standards for the national team were not sufficiently defined as requiring 'outstanding achievements.'

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner met zero of the required three criteria. Specifically, evidence for awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) lacked context on significance, and membership evidence (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) failed to prove the 'outstanding achievements' requirement for the National Snowboarding Team. Other claimed criteria (published material and judging) were not reached as the first two were dispositive.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision misapplied law or USCIS policy. The AAO affirmed that the beneficiary did not meet the required three out of ten EB-1A criteria. The 2018 award lacked evidence of national or international recognition, and the FA Coaches' Club membership requirements were deemed basic, not 'outstanding achievements' judged by experts. Furthermore, the submitted articles about the beneficiary lacked evidence of appearing in 'professional or major trade publications or other major media' due to missing circulation/readership data and target audience information.