AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision SEP082014_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; AAO concluded the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing.…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP082014_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; AAO concluded the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing. (pp. 2, 10–11). Awards: not met; evidence did not demonstrate qualifying nationally/internationally recognized prizes (pp. 5–6). Membership: not met; association evidence did not show outstanding-achievement entry criteria (pp. 6–7). Judging: met; petitioner’s role reviewing work in sports science/psychology was accepted (p. 10). Other criteria failed to produce enough evidence; source also discusses contributions/authorship/role.
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 | SEP082014_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 8, 2014 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sports scientist and psychologist; appeal from dismissal of motion to reopen/reconsider following initial denial. |
Procedural posture | Sports scientist and psychologist; appeal from dismissal of motion to reopen/reconsider following initial denial. Appeal dismissed; AAO concluded the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing. (pp. 2, 10–11) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; AAO concluded the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing. (pp. 2, 10–11) |
Final-merits status | Final-merits determination reached and adverse; AAO reviewed the evidence in aggregate and found it did not distinguish petitioner as among the small percentage at the top. (pp. 9–11) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Awards: not met; evidence did not demonstrate qualifying nationally/internationally recognized prizes (pp. 5–6). Membership: not met; association evidence did not show outstanding-achievement entry criteria (pp. 6–7). Judging: met; petitioner’s role reviewing work in sports science/psychology was accepted (p. 10). Other criteria failed to produce enough evidence; source also discusses contributions/authorship/role.
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 coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | 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 coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Hold for full criterion-level verification; procedural posture is appeal of motion dismissal, non-precedent.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If later published, use a source-cited, decision-specific summary with procedural posture, only source-supported criterion states, page references, and a direct USCIS PDF link. Do not present a non-precedent outcome as a general rule. Sports-science case useful for judging/editorial roles and final-merits evaluation after evidence categories; not a general sports coaching case.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Athletics sector research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.