AAO research
EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision FEB162011_02B2203: AAO concluded petitioner had not shown impact in the narrowly described occupation; it…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB162011_02B2203: AAO concluded petitioner had not shown impact in the narrowly described occupation; it questioned whether the work fit a statutory field and whether U.S. entry would prospectively benefit the country. It expressly states paranormal abilities are inherently untestable, without deciding the truth of the claims (pp. 11, 18-19).
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 | FEB162011_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 16, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition by a self-described animal communicator/psychic; AAO discusses whether the asserted occupation fits statutory fields, prospective U.S. benefit, and evidentiary criteria (pp. 2, 11, 18-19). |
Procedural posture | Nebraska Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 19). |
Operative disposition | AAO concluded petitioner had not shown impact in the narrowly described occupation; it questioned whether the work fit a statutory field and whether U.S. entry would prospectively benefit the country. It expressly states paranormal abilities are inherently untestable, without deciding the truth of the claims (pp. 11, 18-19). |
Final-merits status | Aggregate merits and separate prospective-benefit requirement are discussed; petition not approved (pp. 18-19). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO concluded petitioner had not shown impact in the narrowly described occupation; it questioned whether the work fit a statutory field and whether U.S. entry would prospectively benefit the country. It expressly states paranormal abilities are inherently untestable, without deciding the truth of the claims (pp. 11, 18-19).
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 coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
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 or page-completeness hold; claimant identity is redacted in public copies. See caution/hold in content opportunity where noted.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Hold from automated content aggregation due unusual asserted field and risk of misleading overgeneralization; require attorney/editor review.
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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.