AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision APR112023_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found judging met, rejected membership, contributions, authorship, and salary, and reserved leading/critical role; fewer than three criteria were met.
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: Complete printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A source; identity and posture confirmed on opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | APR112023_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | April 11, 2023 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO expressly reserved the leading-role issue and final-merits determination because the three-criterion initial evidence requirement was not satisfied. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found judging met, rejected membership, contributions, authorship, and salary, and reserved leading/critical role; fewer than three criteria were met.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 3 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — p. 8 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 8 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner worked as a data engineer building data-warehousing and business-intelligence systems and claimed membership, judging, contributions, authorship, role, and salary.; pages: 1; 2
claim: The AAO found ACM/IEEE/AWS or online-community memberships did not meet the criterion, found participation in a performance-review panel sufficient for judging, and rejected the major-significance, scholarly-authorship, and salary claims.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: The AAO reserved the leading/critical-role issue, did not reach final merits, and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 8; 9
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.