AAO research
EB-1A scholarly authorship — AAO decision FEB262021_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision FEB262021_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. AAO conducted final merits and dismissed. The record described significant product work, patents, and praise, but did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing; salary comparison used non-managerial developers rather than comparable managers (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 | FEB262021_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | February 26, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Software development engineering manager at a technology company; emergency-location and 9-1-1 technology work. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial of Form I-140 filed by software/hardware development company. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. |
Final-merits status | Reached; adverse. Product contributions and patents were not shown to establish broad recognition, and publications/salary evidence did not place the beneficiary among the small percentage at the top (pp. 3–7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO conducted final merits and dismissed. The record described significant product work, patents, and praise, but did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing; salary comparison used non-managerial developers rather than comparable managers (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 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 — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong technology comparator for internal product impact versus field recognition, patent evidence, authorship recency, and matching salary comparison populations. Individual case page; separate objective work outcomes from extraordinary-ability recognition.
Editorial use note: Individual case page; separate objective work outcomes from extraordinary-ability recognition.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.