AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision DEC192012_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found the submitted agreements and payment evidence inconsistent and insufficient to establish the claimed evidence categories; the petitioner did not satisfy the three-category threshold.
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 EB-1A decision. This does not make the decision binding precedent; case-specific procedural and merits-stage caveats are retained.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC192012_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 19, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability Form I-140 |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision states the threshold requirement of three evidentiary categories was not met; it notes that a final-merits determination therefore need not be explained. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the submitted agreements and payment evidence inconsistent and insufficient to establish the claimed evidence categories; the petitioner did not satisfy the three-category threshold.
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. 11 |
Membership | Not met — p. 12 |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 14 |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petition sought EB-1A classification based on film-production work.; evidence_pages: 2; 9
claim: The AAO examined project contracts, claimed compensation, bank-transfer records and the petitioner’s response to a notice of derogatory information.; evidence_pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: The AAO concluded the antecedent three-category threshold was not satisfied and dismissed the appeal; final merits was not reached.; evidence_pages: 17; 18; 19
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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.