AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision DEC312020_08B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The Director found judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met; AAO considered original contributions and high salary on appeal but found both not met. Three initial criteria were met, but final merits failed.
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: Opening page identifies EB-1A classification and final page confirms appeal disposition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | DEC312020_08B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | December 31, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly conducted final-merits review and found that, despite three criteria, the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The Director found judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met; AAO considered original contributions and high salary on appeal but found both not met. Three initial criteria were met, but final merits failed.
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 | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 10 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was a biomedical-company director of program management; the Director found three criteria met: peer review, scholarly authorship, and a leading/critical role.; pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO found the product-development claims did not establish original contributions of major significance and the compensation evidence did not establish high salary in relation to others in the field.; pages: 8; 10
claim: AAO weighed the record at final merits, found acclaim/top-of-field status unestablished, and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 10; 11
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
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.