AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision FEB272018_01B2203: Awards

AAO EB-1A decision FEB272018_01B2203: Awards

EB-1A awards — AAO decision FEB272018_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision FEB272018_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Judging and scholarly authorship were met, but scholarship was not a qualifying award, media evidence was deficient, original contributions did not show already-realized major field impact, and leading role/reputation was unproven. Fewer than three criteria; final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).

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

FEB272018_01B2203

Decision date as printed

February 27, 2018

Classification / field stated in source

EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences; petitioner is an electrical engineer (p. 1).

Procedural posture

Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; Director found judging and authorship; petitioner claimed award, published material, original contributions and leading/critical role (pp. 1–2).

Operative disposition

Appeal dismissed (p. 6).

Final-merits status

Not coded in the normalized review fields

What the AAO decision addressed

Judging and scholarly authorship were met, but scholarship was not a qualifying award, media evidence was deficient, original contributions did not show already-realized major field impact, and leading role/reputation was unproven. Fewer than three criteria; final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).

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 met
$8,000 scholarship supported technical project, not recognized excellence in the field; national/international recognition not established (pp. 2–3). — source PDF

Membership

Not coded — source PDF

Published material about the person

not met
Evidence did not establish qualifying professional/major-media publication about petitioner (pp. 3–4). — source PDF

Judging the work of others

met — source PDF

Original contributions of major significance

not met
Letters described possible/future benefits but did not show impact had already occurred in the field (pp. 4–5). — source PDF

Scholarly authorship

met — source PDF

Artistic display or showcases

Not coded — source PDF

Leading or critical role

not met
Letters did not establish petitioner’s differentiated role or organization’s distinguished reputation (pp. 5–6). — source PDF

High salary or remuneration

Not coded — source PDF

Commercial success in the performing arts

Not coded — source PDF

Source holds and limits

"Names/company/project details redacted; source-era standards apply."

Source-cited findings recorded in review

  • p1: Matter of Y-W- cover; electrical engineer.; p2: Criteria framework; Director found two criteria; appeal claims.; p3: Scholarship award and media analysis.; p4: Media evidence deficient; original contributions standard and prospective-impact claim rejected.; p5: Contributions and employer role evidence analyzed.; p6: Role/reputation deficient; fewer than three criteria and dismissal.

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Useful technology-engineering example distinguishing scholarships from awards for excellence, and future promise from already achieved field significance. Eligible for source-cited negative summary, preserving the two criteria found met.

Editorial use note: Eligible for source-cited negative summary, preserving the two criteria found met.

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

  • Published material about the person research

  • Original contributions of major significance 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.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for FEB272018_01B2203