EB-1ASports and athleticsIndividualDecided February 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB282023_05B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metPublished materialNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Professional tennis player seeking extraordinary ability classification failed to establish either major award or three alternate criteria. Court found published material about competitive career insufficient since petitioner intended to work as coach, and salary comparison limited to Chinese players unconvincing. Appeal dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award demonstrated.
- High salary · Remuneration compared only to Chinese players, not indicative of significantly high compensation generally.
- Published material · Published material about competitor, not coach; field of endeavor is coaching, not playing.
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award demonstrated. |
 High salary | Not met | Remuneration compared only to Chinese players, not indicative of significantly high compensation generally. |
 Published material | Not met | Published material about competitor, not coach; field of endeavor is coaching, not playing. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but analysis reserved; failure of initial three-criterion threshold made further review unnecessary. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.