AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision FEB082011_02B2203: AAO found the record did not establish three criteria or sustained acclaim/top-field standing. It…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB082011_02B2203: AAO found the record did not establish three criteria or sustained acclaim/top-field standing. It recognized qualifying peer-review evidence at criterion level, but weighed its limited scope and the other evidence adversely in final merits (pp. 8-9, 19-23).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB082011_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 8, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition for a technical advisor/patent professional specializing in medical imaging, simulation, and computer-aided diagnosis (pp. 2, 5, 9-18). |
Procedural posture | Texas Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 24). |
Operative disposition | AAO found the record did not establish three criteria or sustained acclaim/top-field standing. It recognized qualifying peer-review evidence at criterion level, but weighed its limited scope and the other evidence adversely in final merits (pp. 8-9, 19-23). |
Final-merits status | Separate final-merits analysis is explicit and adverse; judging criterion was considered with limited comparative weight (pp. 20-23). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found the record did not establish three criteria or sustained acclaim/top-field standing. It recognized qualifying peer-review evidence at criterion level, but weighed its limited scope and the other evidence adversely in final merits (pp. 8-9, 19-23).
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No source identity, completeness, or integrity hold. Public copy redacts claimant identities; no identifying inference should be added.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Potential article with citation-level facts and careful case-specific caveats; no general minimum review count should be implied.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.