Can athletes and coaches get an O-1A? What 74 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2005–2025 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2005 and 2025 the AAO published 74 O-1A appeal decisions from athletics petitioners; 1 was sustained and 64 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the top of the field (23 of the 66 merits dismissals, 35%). These are appeals of denials, not all adjudications, so the dismissal rate is not an initial-filing approval rate; it shows which arguments the AAO rejected on appeal and which it accepted.

What the decisions say

Grounds for dismissal, by frequency

  1. 23 of 66 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the top of the field
    “The dismissal was based on the more involved issue of whether the beneficiary possessed the required extraordinary ability in athletics demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim.” AAO, 2007

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
20251 (—)001
20242 (—)013
20233 (—)014
20224 (—)004
20218 (—)008
20202 (—)002
20182 (—)002
20173 (—)003
20161 (—)001
20155 (—)005
20142 (—)002
20133 (—)003
20122 (—)002
20114 (—)105
20104 (—)004
20091 (—)001
20083 (—)003
20074 (—)004
20066 (—)006
20054 (—)015

Criteria Breakdown

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotalDismissal Rate
Awards or prizes7007395.9%
Membership in associations3904097.5%
Published material2702993.1%
Sustained acclaim/extraordinary ability2202588.0%
Leading or critical role2302495.8%
High salary or remuneration22022100.0%
Judging19019—
Original contributions17018—
Procedural/filing12013—
Significant recognition13013—
Authorship of scholarly articles12012—

Example Decisions

Sustained2011-02-07The director denied the petition because the contract between the petitioner (acting as an agent) and the beneficiary did not specify the remuneration. The appeal was sustained because the AAO accepted the petitioner's… Dismissed2025-02-25The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The evidence submitted for the 'awards' criterion did not establish the… Dismissed2024-10-29The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide new facts or evidence to justify reopening, and did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect… Dismissed2023-10-02The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate the beneficiary met the required number of evidentiary criteria. Evidence for a national award (AAU National Championship) was insufficient to show… Dismissed2023-05-25The appeal was dismissed because a prior, related petition approval had been revoked due to fraud. The Director determined that the petitioner was a shell company formed solely to file the petition and that the… Dismissed2023-01-24The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to address two of the three grounds for denial from the original decision. By only contesting the director's findings on the beneficiary's evidence of extraordinary…
In sustained O-1A appeals for Athletics petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as documented professional engagements or performances. Dismissed cases most often lacked published material specifically about the beneficiary; an overall finding of extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim.

Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2005–2025. These are appeals, not all USCIS adjudications; approval rates here are not initial-filing approval rates. Read our full methodology.

Filing your own O-1A? See how your CV maps to the criteria — free strategy preview.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →