AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JAN052017_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN052017_01B2203: dismissed. The AAO found only scholarly authorship met. It withdrew the Director’s judging finding because thesis/faculty advising was not shown to be formal judging; membership, original contributions, and high salary were not established. The threshold failed; AAO made an aggregate observation but no formal final-merits determination.
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: The source identifies an EB-1A petition appeal or motion. The 2015 motion is in scope for procedural analysis, not as a new merits decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN052017_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 5, 2017 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition/appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal; appeal dismissed after fewer than three criteria; no formal final-merits determination. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | Only one criterion was met; AAO stated formal final merits was unnecessary, with an aggregate observation that the expertise level was not established. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found only scholarly authorship met. It withdrew the Director’s judging finding because thesis/faculty advising was not shown to be formal judging; membership, original contributions, and high salary were not established. The threshold failed; AAO made an aggregate observation but no formal final-merits determination.
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 | |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 6 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was a medical director and physician/researcher; the Director found judging and scholarly-authorship criteria met, while petitioner appealed membership, contributions, and high-salary issues.; pages: 2
claim: Thesis/faculty advising did not establish service in a formal judging capacity; AAO withdrew the Director’s positive judging finding.; pages: 4
claim: The membership record did not prove outstanding-achievement admission standards judged by recognized national/international experts.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Conference presentations, a first-place conference paper, clinical-study collaboration, and a manual lacked evidence of field-wide, major significance or independent impact.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Scholarly authorship in professional publications was supported and met; salary evidence did not compare medical-director pay and contained incomplete/uncertified translations.; pages: 6; 7
claim: Only one criterion was satisfied; the appeal was dismissed and formal final merits was not required.; pages: 7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Caption/date/classification/field/posture visually checked.
PDF page 7 — Final source page visually checked; operative order and outcome are pinpointed above.
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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.