AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision DEC092022_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) were met; original contribution, leading role, and salary were not established, leaving the threshold unmet.
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: Printed decision identifies a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability proceeding.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC092022_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 9, 2022 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision; procedural posture noted below. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO states it need not fully address totality in a formal final-merits determination because the threshold was unmet; aggregate advice followed. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) were met; original contribution, leading role, and salary were not established, leaving the threshold unmet.
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 | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: AAO agreed that judging and scholarly-article criteria were met; original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary were not established.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: The petitioner did not establish major significance for the claimed business/technical contributions; the record also failed to support the claimed leading/critical role and high salary.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: The salary comparison relied on U.S. wage data for earnings in India and did not establish high remuneration relative to comparable workers in that country.; pages: 6; 7
claim: The initial threshold failed; AAO did not conduct formal final merits, although it noted aggregate review.; 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
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.