AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision DEC172012_04B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO credited scholarly authorship, rejected the other criteria discussed, found the three-criteria threshold unmet, and dismissed the appeal.
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 decision concerning an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC172012_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2012-12-17 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO appeal from denial of an EB-1A Form I-140; the director separately adjudicated a motion to reopen and reaffirmed denial. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO concludes the initial criteria threshold is unmet; no separate formal final-merits determination is identified. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO credited scholarly authorship, rejected the other criteria discussed, found the three-criteria threshold unmet, and dismissed the appeal.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — p. 5 |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 6 |
Artistic display or showcases | abandoned — p. 6 |
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: The petition concerns an environmental scientist; the AAO appeal follows denial and a separate motion to reopen on which the director reaffirmed the original denial.; evidence_pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO rejected judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role; scholarly authorship was credited, and artistic display was abandoned.; evidence_pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: Fewer than three criteria were met; AAO dismissed the appeal.; evidence_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
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.