Decision summary: AAO decision DEC152006_02B2203: dismissed. Awards, association membership, published material, artistic display, leading role, and high salary were not established; continued-work evidence was absent. AAO found no sustained acclaim/top-of-field eligibility.

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: Source caption and analyzed filing identify an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition or motion.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

What the AAO decision addressed

Awards, association membership, published material, artistic display, leading role, and high salary were not established; continued-work evidence was absent. AAO found no sustained acclaim/top-of-field eligibility.

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.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

• claim: Petition sought extraordinary ability as a painter and teacher; filed Dec. 29, 2004.; pages: 1; 2

• claim: Nine painting awards lacked certified translations, objective evidence of national/international recognition, recipient counts and selection criteria; one certificate had unresolved date inconsistency.; pages: 3; 4

• claim: Association evidence did not establish qualifying requirements; Chinese Arts essay lacked certified translation and major-media proof and no later sustained coverage was shown.; pages: 4; 5

• claim: Artwork images lacked contemporaneous exhibition evidence; chief-editor credential lacked evidence of distinguished publication reputation; salary evidence lacked actual financial records and comparisons.; pages: 5; 6

• claim: AAO found no sustained acclaim, top-of-field status or evidence of plans to continue work in the United States; appeal dismissed.; pages: 6

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.

• PDF page 1 — Caption, decision date, classification, petitioner field and posture.

• PDF page 2 — Page visually inspected; case analysis reviewed. Substantive findings are stated with pinpoint pages in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 3 — Page visually inspected; case analysis reviewed. Substantive findings are stated with pinpoint pages in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 4 — Page visually inspected; case analysis reviewed. Substantive findings are stated with pinpoint pages in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 5 — Page visually inspected; case analysis reviewed. Substantive findings are stated with pinpoint pages in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 6 — Conclusion and operative disposition.

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

• Artistic display or showcases research

• Leading or critical role research

• High salary or remuneration research

• Performance sector research

• Teaching sector research

• Translat research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for DEC152006_02B2203