AAO research
EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision NOV042009_04B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV042009_04B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. The record did not establish the minimum criteria or sustained acclaim. Amateur/collegiate recognition did not establish nationally recognized awards; published material was not shown to qualify; letters praised skill and predicted future success but did not document contributions of major significance or world-level ranking/major tournament results (pp. 4–8).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV042009_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 4, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | Serbian women’s tennis player, formerly ranked in junior competition and seeking classification as a professional tennis player. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial; AAO dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. |
Final-merits status | Adverse aggregate merits assessment stated; no separate Kazarian-stage determination identified (p. 8). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The record did not establish the minimum criteria or sustained acclaim. Amateur/collegiate recognition did not establish nationally recognized awards; published material was not shown to qualify; letters praised skill and predicted future success but did not document contributions of major significance or world-level ranking/major tournament results (pp. 4–8).
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 met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — 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 coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Narrow athlete comparator for junior/amateur recognition, future predictions versus achievements existing at filing, and objective ranking/tournament evidence. Individual case page; preserve that record concerns tennis and the athlete’s sought field, not a general athlete standard.
Editorial use note: Individual case page; preserve that record concerns tennis and the athlete’s sought field, not a general athlete standard.
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
Athletics sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.