AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JAN022019_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN022019_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Only scholarly-article authorship was found met among the seven criteria claimed; remaining evidence, including awards, membership, judging, contributions and leadership, did not establish three criteria. The AAO dismissed. (pp. 4–12).
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 | JAN022019_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 2, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | Matter of J-L-, non-precedent EB-1A decision concerning an environmental engineer. (p. 1) |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; AAO dismissed after de novo review. (pp. 1, 13) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | No distinct Kazarian final-merits analysis followed because fewer than three criteria were met; the AAO also found the record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. (pp. 12–13) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only scholarly-article authorship was found met among the seven criteria claimed; remaining evidence, including awards, membership, judging, contributions and leadership, did not establish three criteria. The AAO dismissed. (pp. 4–12)
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 |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No source identity or completeness hold. Foreign-language translation issues are central to multiple findings; do not recast them as findings on the underlying scientific merits.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If editorially cleared, prepare a source-linked decision summary that names the procedural posture, distinguishes criterion-stage findings from final merits, and cites the PDF pages. Narrow environmental-engineering comparison on patents, research output, citations, expert letters, and actual judging participation; non-precedent and fact-specific.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Judging the work of others research
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.