AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision DEC092013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found the asserted awards claim abandoned, withdrew the director’s published-material finding because translations were deficient, and found the leading-role and high-salary claims insufficient; fewer than three criteria.
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 | DEC092013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 9, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO appeal decision; EB-1A appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The three-criterion threshold was not established; no formal final-merits determination was reached. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the asserted awards claim abandoned, withdrew the director’s published-material finding because translations were deficient, and found the leading-role and high-salary claims insufficient; fewer than three criteria.
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 | abandoned — p. 4 |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 5 |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — p. 6 |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was an actress whose petition included award, published-material, judging, contribution, leading-role, and salary claims.; pages: 1; 2; 3
claim: The AAO treated the awards claim as abandoned; did not consider judging and original-contribution claims first raised on appeal; withdrew the published-material finding because translations did not comply with the regulation; and found leading role and high salary not established.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: The AAO found fewer than three criteria and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 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
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Waiv research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.