AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision FEB142023_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB142023_01B2203: dismissed. Two criteria, published material and judging, were met; original contributions failed, leaving fewer than three.
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: Complete AAO decision addressing an EB-1A Form I-140 extraordinary-ability petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB142023_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2023-02-14 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition decision or motion proceeding |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial of a Form I-140 EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed after failure to meet three criteria. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO says fewer than three criteria were met and reserves other issues; aggregate review is advisory, not a final-merits adjudication. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Two criteria, published material and judging, were met; original contributions failed, leaving fewer than three.
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 | met — p. 2 |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
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 was a technology journalist, author, and educator; the Director found published material and judging met but original contributions not met. (pp. 1–2); pages: 1; 2
claim: The AAO agreed published material and judging criteria were met, but found the petitioner did not establish original contributions of major significance through book, expert letters, conference speaking, or journalism. (pp. 2–5); pages: 2; 3; 4; 5
claim: The AAO concluded fewer than three initial criteria were met, reserved continuing-work and prospective-benefit questions, and dismissed. It advised aggregate evidence did not establish acclaim. (p. 5); pages: 5
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.
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
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.