AAO research
EB-1A leading or critical role — AAO decision JAN282016_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN282016_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied (p. 6). Petitioner neither established athlete extraordinary ability nor three coaching criteria. Coaching achievements and athlete awards did not satisfy a major award or three criteria; evidence did not show continued acclaim at filing and distinction between athlete and coach expertise remained. Final merits adverse (pp. 3–6).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: In scope; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN282016_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 28, 2016 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics; petitioner is a table-tennis coach/trainer (p. 1). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; issue included whether petitioner established extraordinary ability as an athlete and whether coaching was within area of expertise (pp. 1–5). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition denied (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
Petitioner neither established athlete extraordinary ability nor three coaching criteria. Coaching achievements and athlete awards did not satisfy a major award or three criteria; evidence did not show continued acclaim at filing and distinction between athlete and coach expertise remained. Final merits adverse (pp. 3–6).
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 | Not met — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
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 met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Redacted identity and source-era analysis; do not flatten it into a universal rule against comparable evidence for coaches."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Matter of H-W- cover; table-tennis coach/trainer and appeal.; p2: Appeal posture; distinction between coaching and athlete activity; legal framework.; p3: Initial evidence analysis and question whether athletic achievements qualify as coaching expertise.; p4: Awards/athlete achievements and acclaim evidence; criteria shortfall.; p5: Sustained acclaim/current field and continued-work analysis.; p6: Conclusion; threshold and final merits adverse; appeal dismissed.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful contrast to approved coach cases: athlete awards and coaching experience alone may not demonstrate extraordinary ability in coaching or sustained acclaim. Eligible for carefully balanced comparative content with other coach decisions, emphasizing distinct facts and outcomes.
Editorial use note: Eligible for carefully balanced comparative content with other coach decisions, emphasizing distinct facts and outcomes.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Matter of H-W- cover; table-tennis coach/trainer and appeal.
PDF page 2 — Appeal posture; distinction between coaching and athlete activity; legal framework.
PDF page 4 — Awards/athlete achievements and acclaim evidence; criteria shortfall.
PDF page 5 — Sustained acclaim/current field and continued-work analysis.
PDF page 6 — Conclusion; threshold and final merits adverse; appeal dismissed.
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
Leading or critical role research
Athletics sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.