AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision JUL182018_03B2203: Awards

EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUL182018_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision JUL182018_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). AAO sustained two initial criteria (awards and published material). Salary was not high relative to relevant athletes; commercial-success criterion was not comparable and petitioner did not show listed criteria were inapplicable; contributions/leading role claims did not establish three criteria. Final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).

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	JUL182018_03B2203
Decision date as printed	July 18, 2018
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics; petitioner is a badminton player (p. 1).
Procedural posture	Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; Director found awards and published material met; petitioner sought salary and commercial-success comparable evidence (pp. 1–5).
Operative disposition	Appeal dismissed (p. 6).
Final-merits status	Not coded in the normalized review fields

What the AAO decision addressed

AAO sustained two initial criteria (awards and published material). Salary was not high relative to relevant athletes; commercial-success criterion was not comparable and petitioner did not show listed criteria were inapplicable; contributions/leading role claims did not establish three criteria. Final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).

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	met AAO agreed medals at sanctioned tournaments satisfied awards criterion (p. 2). — source PDF
Membership	Not coded — source PDF
Published material about the person	met AAO agreed major Indian publications wrote about petitioner and badminton performance (p. 2). — source PDF
Judging the work of others	Not coded — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	not met Petitioner did not establish qualifying contributions and did not show comparable evidence should substitute (pp. 4–5). — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not coded — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not coded — source PDF
Leading or critical role	not met Petitioner did not establish leading/critical-role evidence or applicability of comparable evidence (p. 5). — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	not met Compensation and housing allowance did not establish high salary/remuneration relative to similarly situated badminton players; wage comparison was inadequate (pp. 3–4). — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	not met Commercial-success criterion did not readily apply, but petitioner did not show why other criteria could not apply or that rankings were comparable to commercial sales (pp. 4–5). — source PDF

Source holds and limits

"Identity redacted; wage data is historical and specific to petitioner/region; do not treat as current salary guidance."

Source-cited findings recorded in review

physical p1: Cover identifies badminton player and denial; only two criteria found by Director.; physical p2: AAO confirms awards and published material met; two additional criteria not met.; physical p3: Salary evidence fails; distinguishes remuneration from salary and needs relevant comparison.; physical p4: Wage comparisons and commercial-success/comparable-evidence analysis.; physical p5: Other criteria/comparable evidence rejected; P-1 status is not determinative; final merits not reached.; physical p6: Appeal dismissed.

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Useful sports comparable-evidence example: rankings are not automatically comparable to commercial success; alternatives require evidence why listed criteria do not readily apply. Eligible for focused case summary on comparable evidence and compensation, preserving that two criteria were met.

Editorial use note: Eligible for focused case summary on comparable evidence and compensation, preserving that two criteria were met.

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
Original contributions of major significance 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.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JUL182018_03B2203