AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision APR142010_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed; petition denied The operative order and the AAO’s stated eligibility analysis; see the cited final pages.
Source reviewed: This page summarizes the specific AAO source and posture recorded in the completed source-review tracker. It does not turn a nonprecedent decision into a general rule.
Scope classification from review: AAO decision on an EB-1A Form I-140 petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | APR142010_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | April 14, 2010 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO decision concerning a Form I-140 petition for EB-1A classification under INA § 203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal from denial of an EB-1A petition; petitioner was a tennis coach/instructor and presented professional tennis rankings and coaching evidence. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition denied |
Final-merits status | The AAO performs a Kazarian final-merits analysis after rejecting the claimed criteria and concludes the evidence does not show top-of-field sustained acclaim. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The operative order and the AAO’s stated eligibility analysis; see the cited final pages.
Criterion-by-criterion status in this source
These labels reproduce the source-review record. “Not considered,” “not reached,” and “not coded” do not mean the criterion failed. A Director finding recited as background is not an AAO holding unless the decision says so.
Criterion | Source-review status |
|---|---|
Awards | |
Membership | |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 14 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petition sought classification based on tennis coaching; the AAO distinguished an instructor/coach’s field from athletes’ competitive rankings.; evidence_pages: 2; 3; 7
claim: The AAO found the submitted rankings were not nationally recognized awards, membership requirements did not demand outstanding achievements, and the judging, published-material and contribution claims were not established.; evidence_pages: 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12
claim: The AAO rejected leading-role and high-salary evidence and dismissed the appeal after a separate final-merits review.; evidence_pages: 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
How to use this record
This is a historical, nonprecedent AAO decision about its own administrative record. It is not a prediction, success rate, or current filing instruction. Compare the issue and procedural stage before drawing an analogy. The current framework is in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2.
Related corpus research
Full-corpus research index
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Athletics sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.