AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR032009_02B2203: Outcome

AAO EB-1A decision APR032009_02B2203: Outcome

EB-1A outcome — AAO decision APR032009_02B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision APR032009_02B2203: dismissed. The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.

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.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID

APR032009_02B2203

Decision date as printed

Not stated in normalized review fields

Classification / field stated in source

Classification not stated in the normalized review fields

Procedural posture

Procedural posture not separately coded in the normalized review fields. Consult the source PDF.

Operative disposition

dismissed

Final-merits status

No formal modern Kazarian final-merits section; pages 6-7 contain aggregate sustained-acclaim/top-of-field reasoning.

What the AAO decision addressed

The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.

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

Discussed; state not normalized
Track standings were not first place, and later records postdated filing; pages 3, 5-6. — source PDF

Membership

Not coded — source PDF

Published material about the person

Discussed; state not normalized
Spanish articles had partial translations, were not shown to be about petitioner/work, lacked metadata or major-media proof; accident coverage and Google search did not qualify; pages 3-4. — source PDF

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

Discussed; state not normalized
Winning-jockey photos did not establish distinguished reputation of owners, horses, or racecourses; page 4. — source PDF

High salary or remuneration

Discussed; state not normalized
Tax returns lacked comparative jockey compensation evidence; page 5. — source PDF

Commercial success in the performing arts

Not coded — source PDF

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Useful supporting example in a carefully sourced published-material evidence article, paired with modern cases and current USCIS policy. Avoid using it as sole authority or to make a general claim about all jockeys.

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

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for APR032009_02B2203