AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision DEC192005_06B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and artistic display; it concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim 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: Source is an AAO decision involving an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition or its motion/appeal.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC192005_06B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2005-10-19 |
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. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO found the threshold unmet and issued an adverse aggregate discussion without a separate formal final-merits stage. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and artistic display; it concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim 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 met — p. 3 |
Membership | |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 8 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 8 |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
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 petitioner sought extraordinary-ability classification as a visiting postdoctoral fellow / neuroscience researcher; AAO considered NIH and other research awards.; evidence_pages: 2; 3
claim: AAO rejected awards, association membership, published material, judging of others’ work, and original contributions; it found authorship evidence insufficient to establish acclaim and rejected artistic-display evidence.; evidence_pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: AAO found no qualifying major award or three criteria, no sustained acclaim, and dismissed the appeal.; evidence_pages: 8
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
Withdrawal research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.