AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision FEB192019_01B2203: Awards

EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB192019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision FEB192019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 7). The petitioner’s certificates were not qualifying field-wide awards; association eligibility was automatic/fee based or not shown to require outstanding achievements; judging evidence conflicted as to whether he judged an event; recommendation letters did not establish major-significance contributions, leadership in distinguished organizations, or qualifying high salary (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	FEB192019_01B2203
Decision date as printed	February 19, 2019
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A sciences appeal; petitioner is a testing and commissioning engineer.
Procedural posture	Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; director found none of the ten initial criteria met; AAO dismissed (pp. 1–2, 7).
Operative disposition	Appeal dismissed (p. 7).
Final-merits status	No separate Kazarian final-merits step because fewer than three criteria were met; AAO nevertheless stated its aggregate review did not support the required acclaim (p. 7).

What the AAO decision addressed

The petitioner’s certificates were not qualifying field-wide awards; association eligibility was automatic/fee based or not shown to require outstanding achievements; judging evidence conflicted as to whether he judged an event; recommendation letters did not establish major-significance contributions, leadership in distinguished organizations, or qualifying high salary (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 Employer and participation certificates were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field (p. 3). — source PDF
Membership	not met Evidence showed automatic membership based on professional registration/payment and did not establish outstanding achievement adjudged by recognized experts (p. 3). — source PDF
Published material about the person	Not coded — source PDF
Judging the work of others	not met Certificate/brief conflicted with a later letter about whether the petitioner actually judged the event; material inconsistency was not independently resolved (p. 4). — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	not met Letters praised personal/job abilities without identifying original contributions or explaining major significance to the field (p. 5). — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not coded — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not coded — source PDF
Leading or critical role	not met Letters did not establish leadership, essential contribution, or distinguished reputation of the companies (pp. 5–6). — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	not met Evidence did not establish remuneration high in relation to others in the field (p. 6). — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not coded — source PDF

Source-cited findings recorded in review

Page references are physical PDF pages; all physical pages were visually inspected in order.

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Useful fact-specific example on conflicting proof of actual judging, automatic professional membership, and general praise versus corroborated impact. Nonprecedent 2019 case. Potential individual case page, with the judging discrepancy cited precisely and the source labeled nonprecedent. No CMS edits or publication were made.

Editorial use note: Potential individual case page, with the judging discrepancy cited precisely and the source labeled nonprecedent. No CMS edits or publication were made.

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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Computing sector research
Corroborat research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for FEB192019_01B2203