AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB162023_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO found awards, leading/critical role, and scholarly authorship met, but final merits unmet; short-term government working group and commercial ventures did not establish sustained acclaim.
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 printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A source; identity and posture checked against opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB162023_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 16, 2023 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent appeal from Texas Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | After finding three criteria met, AAO found final merits did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field expertise. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found awards, leading/critical role, and scholarly authorship met, but final merits unmet; short-term government working group and commercial ventures did not establish sustained acclaim.
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 | met — p. 3 |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 3 |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 3 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 3 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 3 |
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: Petitioner had a Ph.D. and worked on AI, robotics, informatics projects and a commercial technology venture.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Awards, leading/critical role, and scholarly authorship met; major-significance contributions not established.; pages: 3; 5
claim: Appeal dismissed after final-merits review.; pages: 8; 9
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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.