AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JUN182012_02B2203: The case evaluates the beneficiary as a fencing coach, not as a competitive athlete. Awards to students…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN182012_02B2203: The case evaluates the beneficiary as a fencing coach, not as a competitive athlete. Awards to students do not satisfy the petitioner-receipt criterion; membership/published-material and judging claims were not established; leading/critical role failed because the employer’s distinguished reputation was not documented. (pp. 7–10). Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not meet the required three criteria. AAO separately notes that the record did not establish intent to continue work in the field in the United States. (pp. 4–5, 10–11).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN182012_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 18, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | Fencing coach seeking EB-1A as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics; appeal of Texas Service Center denial. |
Procedural posture | Fencing coach seeking EB-1A as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics; appeal of Texas Service Center denial. The case evaluates the beneficiary as a fencing coach, not as a competitive athlete. Awards to students do not satisfy the petitioner-receipt criterion; membership/published-material and judging claims were not established; leading/critical role failed because the employer’s distinguished reputation was not documented. (pp. 7–10) |
Operative disposition | The case evaluates the beneficiary as a fencing coach, not as a competitive athlete. Awards to students do not satisfy the petitioner-receipt criterion; membership/published-material and judging claims were not established; leading/critical role failed because the employer’s distinguished reputation was not documented. (pp. 7–10) |
Final-merits status | Not reached because the antecedent three-category threshold was not met; decision says no final-merits explanation is required. (p. 11) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not meet the required three criteria. AAO separately notes that the record did not establish intent to continue work in the field in the United States. (pp. 4–5, 10–11)
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 met |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | not met |
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
Hold for an individual case summary; adverse decision and procedural findings are fact-specific. Older AAO decision; no precedential force.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If published, use a dated case-specific answer summary, procedural posture, criterion states supported by cited source pages, and direct USCIS PDF link. Do not present as precedent or imply the outcome applies generally. Narrow coaching case: distinguishes athlete evidence from coaching field, awards received by students, and job role versus distinguished organization.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Leading or critical role research
Athletics sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.