AAO research
EB-1A original contributions of major significance — AAO decision FEB242006_01B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved; Director’s decision withdrawn…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB242006_01B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved; Director’s decision withdrawn (p. 6). AAO found the petitioner met three criteria: original contributions of major significance, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role for the protective-relay segment of NARI. It credited objective evidence of national awards, deployed products, market adoption, standards work, publications/citations, the petitioner’s department-director role and the segment’s reputation. Continued work in field and prospective U.S. benefit were established (pp. 3–6).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | FEB242006_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 24, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences; petitioner is a transmission engineer (p. 3). |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial; on appeal petitioner submitted a new letter about his role at NARI and evidence of NARI’s reputation (pp. 2–3). |
Operative disposition | Appeal sustained; petition approved; Director’s decision withdrawn (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found the petitioner met three criteria: original contributions of major significance, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role for the protective-relay segment of NARI. It credited objective evidence of national awards, deployed products, market adoption, standards work, publications/citations, the petitioner’s department-director role and the segment’s reputation. Continued work in field and prospective U.S. benefit were established (pp. 3–6).
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Identities and some organizations/products are redacted; 2006 decision and regulatory language should not be presented as individualized legal advice or assumed current across cases."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Cover page and appeal decision identification; page 2 announces appeal sustained and approval and identifies transmission-engineering field.; p2: Statutory and regulatory framework; petitioner’s appeal arguments and national impact context.; p3: Original contributions criterion; products, patents, software, technical standards and expert testimony.; p4: Government awards, sales/deployment and objective corroboration; AAO finds major-significance criterion met.; p5: Authorship and leading-role discussion; publication in context of industrial engineering and Director role at NARI.; p6: Continued recognition, same-field work, U.S. benefit, and order sustaining appeal/approving petition.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong positive comparison for industrial technology contributions supported by objective adoption, national awards, standards and role evidence. Eligible for a detailed positive case summary grounded in the unusually concrete adoption and award evidence; retain historical context and precise criterion findings.
Editorial use note: Eligible for a detailed positive case summary grounded in the unusually concrete adoption and award evidence; retain historical context and precise criterion findings.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.