AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB282023_05B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 5). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB282023_05B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 5). Lesser awards criterion upheld as met. Published-material criterion failed because outlet major-media status, author/transcript and audience evidence were inadequate, and tennis-player coverage did not match intended coaching field. High remuneration failed because the comparison was limited to Chinese players and lacked tax/income evidence. Association membership was reserved (physical pp. 2–5).
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: in_scope_appeal_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB282023_05B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 28, 2023 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A; professional tennis player seeking to enter the United States as a tennis coach. |
Procedural posture | AAO de novo appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (physical p. 5). |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination not reached; AAO says aggregate evidence does not establish acclaim/top-of-field (physical pp. 5). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Lesser awards criterion upheld as met. Published-material criterion failed because outlet major-media status, author/transcript and audience evidence were inadequate, and tennis-player coverage did not match intended coaching field. High remuneration failed because the comparison was limited to Chinese players and lacked tax/income evidence. Association membership was reserved (physical pp. 2–5).
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 | met |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Citations use physical PDF page numbers; printed page number noted in page-by-page record where legible.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Good narrow comparison for field-of-work alignment (player versus coach), contextualizing traffic statistics, and representative salary benchmarks. Keep distinct from other tennis cases unless each athlete’s intended work and evidence are separately described. Publish as appeal decision; clearly label intended U.S. work as coaching.
Editorial use note: Publish as appeal decision; clearly label intended U.S. work as coaching.
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
Published material about the person research
Athletics sector research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.