AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY312018_02B2203: Appeal denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY312018_02B2203: Appeal denied. No one-time achievement or three qualifying criteria; aggregate evidence did not establish required expertise/acclaim.
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. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY312018_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 31, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | Matter of A-C-S-T-, EB-1A appeal / non-precedent |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; de novo review denies appeal. |
Operative disposition | Appeal denied. |
Final-merits status | Not reached_with_aggregate_unfavorable_review |
What the AAO decision addressed
No one-time achievement or three qualifying criteria; aggregate evidence did not establish required expertise/acclaim.
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 |
Membership | Not met |
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 met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"No completeness hold."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was member of men’s tennis team that won a championship and was runner-up; AAO accepted team awards as received by petitioner but found broader national/international recognition unproven.; pages: 3
claim: Tennis coaching certifications/memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Spanish newspaper article was about petitioner and tennis career/transition to coaching, but media significance was not established relative to national publications.; pages: 4
claim: Team distinguished reputation was supported, but individual leadership/criticality was not; fewer than three criteria and final merits unfavorable.; pages: 5; 6
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: individual_case_comparison_eligible
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Matter of A-C-S-T-, appeal posture and tennis field.
PDF page 2 — Law and initial analysis; team awards and award criterion.
PDF page 3 — Membership requirements and media article criteria.
PDF page 4 — Article about petitioner but major-media status not proven; role criterion starts.
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
Leading or critical role research
Athletics sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.