AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision DEC092015_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The Director found judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met, and AAO agreed. At final merits, employer recognition, professional memberships, internal bid evaluation, a patent/citation record concentrated among collaborators, project work, licenses, and modestly above-median salary did not establish top-of-field sustained acclaim.
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: The source is an AAO EB-1A petition appeal and provides decision-specific procedural and evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC092015_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 9, 2015 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal; appeal dismissed after formal final-merits determination. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Despite meeting three criteria, the aggregate record did not show sustained national/international acclaim or that the petitioner had risen to the very top of electrical engineering. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The Director found judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met, and AAO agreed. At final merits, employer recognition, professional memberships, internal bid evaluation, a patent/citation record concentrated among collaborators, project work, licenses, and modestly above-median salary did not establish top-of-field sustained acclaim.
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 3 |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was an electrical engineer; the Director found three initial criteria met and denied at final merits.; pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO agreed that reviewing Ph.D. theses/rating contract bids constituted judging, that co-authored professional work met scholarly authorship, and that a senior-engineer role on projects for a distinguished electric company met leading/critical role.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Employer tenure certificates and professional memberships reflected employment/qualification but did not show national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Judging duties were trusted professional work, but the record did not show they were commensurate with the very top of the field or recognized outside the employer.; pages: 4
claim: Letters used repeated generalized language; the patent/citation record was not shown to have wider field impact, and citations were chiefly from a coauthor/co-inventor.; pages: 4; 5
claim: The project’s $8–10 million annual commitment was assessed in the context of the employer’s much larger capital and operating expenditures; employer praise did not show field-wide acclaim.; pages: 5; 6
claim: The claimed $96,500 salary was not corroborated and, even using stated figures, was only slightly above the median; licenses showed qualification rather than extraordinary ability.; pages: 6; 7
claim: AAO found final merits unmet and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.