AAO research
EB-1A original contributions of major significance — AAO decision DEC222017_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision DEC222017_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO agreed scholarly authorship was met but found award, original contributions, leading/critical role and high salary unsupported, leaving fewer than three criteria; aggregate acclaim insufficient. Formal final-merits review not required.
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: In scope; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC222017_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 22, 2017 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A education; mathematics professor |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; Director found scholarly authorship only; AAO de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO agreed scholarly authorship was met but found award, original contributions, leading/critical role and high salary unsupported, leaving fewer than three criteria; aggregate acclaim insufficient. Formal final-merits review not required.
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 — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Pinpoint physical PDF page citations appear in each criterion basis; page-by-page source coverage follows.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful academic example for separating authorship from major-impact proof and for avoiding a merits step when threshold is unmet. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 3 — Award deficiencies and research/contribution analysis, including citation evidence.
PDF page 4 — Unpublished chemical alphabet/math-poetry project and leading/critical role rejected.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.