AAO research
EB-1A scholarly authorship — AAO decision FEB152024_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 1, 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB152024_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 1, 7). AAO found awards, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role not established. It reserved appellate arguments concerning published material and high salary after finding fewer than three criteria. Comparable evidence was also not established; no full Kazarian final-merits determination was required, though AAO gave an advisory aggregate adverse conclusion (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 | FEB152024_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 15, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | Entrepreneur with municipal political service and philanthropic projects; proposed to continue entrepreneurial activities in the United States. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial of Form I-140; de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (pp. 1, 7). |
Final-merits status | No full Kazarian final merits because fewer than three criteria were met; AAO stated an advisory aggregate adverse conclusion (p. 7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found awards, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role not established. It reserved appellate arguments concerning published material and high salary after finding fewer than three criteria. Comparable evidence was also not established; no full Kazarian final-merits determination was required, though AAO gave an advisory aggregate adverse conclusion (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 — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful narrow comparator for petitions that combine entrepreneurship, local public service, philanthropy, and business claims: separate evidence of activity from evidence that satisfies criterion text. Keep reserved issues labeled as reserved. Individual source-linked case summary; do not generalize municipal service or philanthropy beyond this record.
Editorial use note: Individual source-linked case summary; do not generalize municipal service or philanthropy beyond this record.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.