AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision DEC012015_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO found three criteria met (judging, artistic display, and leading/critical role) but found final merits unmet because the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
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 checked against opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC012015_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 1, 2015 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent appeal of Nebraska Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits analysis followed three met criteria; AAO found the total record did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found three criteria met (judging, artistic display, and leading/critical role) but found final merits unmet because the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
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 — p. 4 |
Membership | Not met — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Matter of A-M-O-S- concerned a collaborative pianist and vocal coach.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Judging at a piano competition, artistic display, and a leading role were found to meet three separate criteria.; pages: 3; 5; 7
claim: Despite meeting three criteria, the petitioner did not establish final merits; appeal dismissed.; 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
Athletics sector research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.