AAO research
EB-1A three-criterion threshold — AAO decision AUG242021_01B2203: ORDER: The appeal is sustained.; 6. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision AUG242021_01B2203: ORDER: The appeal is sustained.; 6. 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 | AUG242021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | {'value': '2021-08-24', 'confidence': 'high', 'support': 'Cover page (PDF p.1).'} |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; nephrologist and clinical researcher (PDF pp.1-2). The decision labels itself non-precedent (p.1). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial. Director found the initial evidentiary criteria satisfied but not sustained acclaim/top-of-field. AAO conducted de novo review and sustained the appeal (PDF pp.1-2). |
Operative disposition | {'exact': 'ORDER: The appeal is sustained.', 'page': 6} |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | other — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Discussed; state not normalized |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Discussed; state not normalized |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: [{'fact': 'Peer review, scholarly authorship, and critical role were expressly accepted as three threshold criteria.', 'pages': [2]}, {'fact': 'The totality included clinical research recognition, coauthored JAMA Internal Medicine work with major-media coverage, invited consortium role, professional-organizational recognition, and expert evidence of clinical use/influence of work.', 'pages': [3, 4, 5]}, {'fact': 'AAO concluded petitioner was among the small percentage at the top with sustained acclaim and sustained the appeal.', 'pages': [5, 6]}]
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
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.