AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB152018_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB152018_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Judging and scholarly authorship were met; award, original contributions, and high salary were not. Citation percentiles, recommendation letters, grants, and software tools did not establish major field-wide impact. Fewer than three criteria; no separate final merits (pp. 2–7).
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 | FEB152018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 15, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition by a memory-storage company for a software verification/model-checking researcher. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). |
Final-merits status | No separate final-merits determination; threshold unmet; aggregate assessment adverse (p. 7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Judging and scholarly authorship were met; award, original contributions, and high salary were not. Citation percentiles, recommendation letters, grants, and software tools did not establish major field-wide impact. Fewer than three criteria; no separate final merits (pp. 2–7).
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 |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 2–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful comparator for software-research citation, team-award attribution, grant participation, and occupationally appropriate salary benchmarking. Avoid converting this into a categorical rule on metrics. Individual source-linked summary and qualified software-research evidence comparison.
Editorial use note: Individual source-linked summary and qualified software-research evidence comparison.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
High salary or remuneration 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.