AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision APR042018_01B2203: A research scientist's appeal was sustained; he qualified as an individual of…
Decision summary: AAO decision APR042018_01B2203: A research scientist’s appeal was sustained; he qualified as an individual of extraordinary ability.
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 | APR042018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2018-04-04 |
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 | A research scientist's appeal was sustained; he qualified as an individual of extraordinary ability. |
Final-merits status | "Yes. Explicit formal final-merits analysis on pages 3-5, with a favorable conclusion." |
What the AAO decision addressed
A research scientist's appeal was sustained; he qualified as an individual of extraordinary ability.
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — 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
finding: The decision says the Director found three initial criteria and that the AAO agreed: judging, scholarly authorship, and original contributions. The AAO then expressly opened a 'Final Merits Determination.'; pages: 1-3
finding: The AAO credited substantial manuscript reviewing for highly ranked publications; a considerable publication/citation record including cover selection and unusually high citations; expert evidence; patents; commercialization; and independent use of the research. It found sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing and sustained the appeal.; pages: 3-5
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Whether this was a procedural dismissal, remand, or merits example; outcome and basis.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.