AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB132013_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed; petition denied The AAO’s printed procedural discussion, eligibility analysis and operative order; see cited pages.
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 decision concerning an EB-1A Form I-140 petition or motion related to that petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB132013_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 13, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO decision concerning a Form I-140 petition for EB-1A classification under INA § 203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal concerning an EB-1A petition for a postdoctoral research associate; the decision relates to the first of two appeal forms identified by the AAO. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition denied |
Final-merits status | The AAO assessed the evidence in the aggregate and concluded the petitioner had not shown sustained acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the top of neuroscience. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO’s printed procedural discussion, eligibility analysis and operative order; see cited pages.
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. 12 |
Membership | abandoned — p. 4 |
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 considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner’s research addressed sudden unexpected death in epilepsy; the decision describes findings involving fluoxetine and audiogenic-seizure mouse models.; evidence_pages: 5
claim: The AAO found judging and scholarly-article authorship criteria met, but rejected awards, original-contribution and leading-role evidence; membership was abandoned on appeal.; evidence_pages: 4; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15
claim: The AAO concluded the research record and citations did not establish top-of-field sustained acclaim and dismissed the appeal.; evidence_pages: 14; 15
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
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.