AAO research
EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision FEB192009_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found the evidence insufficient under the claimed criteria, including that a newspaper article concerned the broader fuel-cell effort rather than the petitioner and that invitations did not establish completed judging.
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 | FEB192009_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 19, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO found the evidence did not establish the required criteria and did not show sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the evidence insufficient under the claimed criteria, including that a newspaper article concerned the broader fuel-cell effort rather than the petitioner and that invitations did not establish completed judging.
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 | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — source PDF |
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 sought extraordinary-ability classification as a fuel-cell researcher.; pages: 2; 3
claim: The AAO assessed awards, membership, media, judging, contributions, scholarly authorship, and role claims and found the evidence insufficient; the published article concerned the fuel-cell effort generally, and invitations alone did not prove review activity.; pages: 3; 9
claim: The appeal was dismissed.; pages: 9; 10
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
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.