AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision FEB222013_01B2203: Judging the work of others

EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision FEB222013_01B2203: Director decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved. Review source…

Decision summary: AAO decision FEB222013_01B2203: Director decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved. AAO accepted judging, original contributions, and scholarly authorship; final merits credited extensive health-policy impact, international/national research recognition, influential work, frequent citations, peer review and national-level role.

Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.

Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID	FEB222013_01B2203
Decision date as printed	February 22, 2013
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A extraordinary ability petition; AAO decision
Procedural posture	Appeal of Texas Service Center denial of EB-1A petition.
Operative disposition	Director decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved.
Final-merits status	reached_and_favorable

What the AAO decision addressed

AAO accepted judging, original contributions, and scholarly authorship; final merits credited extensive health-policy impact, international/national research recognition, influential work, frequent citations, peer review and national-level role.

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	met AAO accepted judging evidence. — p. 3
Original contributions of major significance	met Research findings demonstrated major significance. — p. 4, p. 5
Scholarly authorship	met AAO accepted authorship. — p. 5
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

"Redactions and omitted supporting papers/letters limit independent verification of the underlying research claims."

Source-cited findings recorded in review

claim: AAO concluded original contributions were majorly significant; expert letters and examples of use of work by other researchers supported impact.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Petitioner authored/collaborated on 70 scientific papers; evidence recorded 878 citations; peer review, chapter authorship and conference talks also informed final merits.; pages: 5; 6
claim: Final-merits analysis found top-of-field acclaim in health science as statistician/researcher; appeal sustained and petition approved.; pages: 5; 6

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion_with_careful_citations

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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research

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

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for FEB222013_01B2203