Decision summary: AAO decision JAN042005_02B2203: dismissed. Legacy overall acclaim analysis found the evidence insufficient; same underlying case and disposition as Jan042005 01b2203.

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: EB-1A AAO appellate decision reviewed from complete source PDF; no publication or CMS changes made.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

What the AAO decision addressed

Legacy overall acclaim analysis found the evidence insufficient; same underlying case and disposition as JAN042005_01B2203.

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.

Source holds and limits

"Duplicate underlying decision conflict: identical receipt number EAC 02 146 54025 and materially matching substantive reasoning/order on pages 2–6 with JAN042005_01B2203, but distinct PDF hash/front-page scan. Integrity passes for this file; do not treat as a separate precedent."

Source-cited findings recorded in review

• claim: The decision found that a participation certificate was not a qualifying prize, association membership requirements were undocumented, and the record did not establish judging.; pages: 3; 4

• claim: Old regional press coverage did not establish sustained national acclaim; asserted contributions lacked evidence of impact; local exhibitions occurred after filing and did not satisfy the claimed distinction.; pages: 3; 4; 5

• claim: Appeal dismissed under a legacy overall-acclaim analysis. Same underlying case receipt number and materially matching substantive reasoning/order on pages 2–6 as JAN042005_01B2203; scan/OCR and front-page rendition differences exist.; pages: 5; 6

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: ; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: ; reason: Hold independent page/aggregation use pending deduplication of two source renditions for the same EAC receipt and same substantive decision.; recommended_use: Do not create an independent page or count as a separate decision until duplicate identity is resolved.

Page-level source trail

Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.

• PDF page 1 — Cover page, scan artifacts and receipt number reviewed; differs in rendition from JAN042005_01B2203. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible.

• PDF page 2 — Procedural posture and legacy legal discussion reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible.

• PDF page 3 — Award and media evidence discussion reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: The decision found that a participation certificate was not a qualifying prize, association membership requirements were undocumented, and the record did not establish judging. Evidence reviewed: Old regional press coverage did not establish sustained national acclaim; asserted contributions lacked evidence of impact; local exhibitions occurred after filing and did not satisfy the claimed distinction.

• PDF page 4 — Membership/judging and record evidence discussion reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: The decision found that a participation certificate was not a qualifying prize, association membership requirements were undocumented, and the record did not establish judging. Evidence reviewed: Old regional press coverage did not establish sustained national acclaim; asserted contributions lacked evidence of impact; local exhibitions occurred after filing and did not satisfy the claimed distinction.

• PDF page 5 — Contribution/display and overall acclaim reasoning reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: Old regional press coverage did not establish sustained national acclaim; asserted contributions lacked evidence of impact; local exhibitions occurred after filing and did not satisfy the claimed distinction. Evidence reviewed: Appeal dismissed under a legacy overall-acclaim analysis. Same underlying case receipt number and materially matching substantive reasoning/order on pages 2–6 as JAN042005_01B2203; scan/OCR and front-page rendition differences exist.

• PDF page 6 — Conclusion and operative order reviewed; substantive body duplicates JAN042005_01B2203. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: Appeal dismissed under a legacy overall-acclaim analysis. Same underlying case receipt number and materially matching substantive reasoning/order on pages 2–6 as JAN042005_01B2203; scan/OCR and front-page rendition differences exist.

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

• Published material about the person research

• Judging the work of others research

• Original contributions of major significance research

• Performance sector research

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

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JAN042005_02B2203