AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision AUG302005_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision AUG302005_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO found the petitioner accomplished and valuable to the institutions where he worked, but the record did not establish sustained acclaim placing him at the very top of psychiatry. (pp. 8–9).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | AUG302005_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | August 30, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Psychiatrist/physician seeking extraordinary-ability classification in the sciences. |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal from Vermont Service Center denial; self-represented petitioner relied on psychiatric work, association memberships, AMA recognition, and recommendation letters. (pp. 1–3) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | No formal Kazarian final-merits section; the decision applies the then-current analysis and concludes that sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing was not established. (pp. 8–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found the petitioner accomplished and valuable to the institutions where he worked, but the record did not establish sustained acclaim placing him at the very top of psychiatry. (pp. 8–9)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
The AAO expressly recognized valuable contributions to institutions where the petitioner worked; the adverse result was lack of sustained national/international acclaim and top-of-field evidence. (p. 9); Older decision predates the current two-step Kazarian approach; do not describe its analysis as a formal final-merits determination. (pp. 2–9)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Source-cited historical case note on the distinction between respected institutional service and evidence of acclaim across the field.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.