AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB222006_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO accepted scholarly authorship but found the other claimed criteria insufficient and found the total record did not show extraordinary ability.
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: The decision identifies an immigrant petition as an alien of extraordinary ability under INA § 203(b)(1)(A). (pp. 1–2). This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB222006_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 22, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability appeal decision. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Fewer than three criteria were established; legacy conclusion discusses the overall record but does not conduct a separate Kazarian-style final-merits step. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship but found the other claimed criteria insufficient and found the total record did not show extraordinary ability.
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 — p. 3 |
Membership | Not met — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 7 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 7 |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 7 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 8 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The AAO accepted scholarly authorship, but not the other asserted categories needed to reach three criteria.; pages: 2; 7
claim: The decision rejected awards, membership, published-material, judging, contributions, display, leading-role, and high-salary claims on the evidence presented.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: The contributions discussion found letters and research promising but insufficient to establish already-realized major impact in the field.; pages: 5; 6
claim: The appeal was dismissed; the decision used a legacy aggregate analysis, not a distinct modern final-merits section.; pages: 8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Medicine sector research
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.