AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision DEC212005_02B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision DEC212005_02B2203: dismissed. The record did not establish the claimed criteria or sustained acclaim under the legacy overall-acclaim analysis; no modern formal final-merits step.
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 extraordinary-ability appellate decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC212005_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Dec. 21, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Legacy EB-1A appellate decision (petitioner redacted; receipt number EAC 04 041 50560) |
Procedural posture | Appeal of immigrant-petition denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy decision; no modern formal final-merits determination. Overall acclaim was not established. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The record did not establish the claimed criteria or sustained acclaim under the legacy overall-acclaim analysis; no modern formal final-merits step.
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 5 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The AAO rejected awards evidence because recognition and relevance to excellence were not established; some awards predated filing by years and another postdated filing.; pages: 3
claim: Chinese-language book and press evidence had translation, distribution, and subject-matter gaps; judging evidence was local and authorship evidence was not adequately translated or substantiated.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Exhibitions did not establish the claimed sustained acclaim; one 1994 painting sale did not show repeated high compensation.; pages: 5; 6
claim: The appeal was dismissed under the legacy overall-acclaim framework; the decision predates the modern two-step Kazarian formulation.; pages: 2; 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 and legacy appellate posture; petitioner identity redacted.
PDF page 2 — Legal standard and summary of legacy acclaim framework and issues.
PDF page 6 — Remaining discussion and dismissal; overall acclaim not established.
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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
High salary or remuneration research
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Translat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.