AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision JAN132010_05B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found the claimed publication, original-contribution, authorship, and leading-role evidence insufficient and concluded the record did not establish the criteria or acclaim.
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: Complete printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A source; identity and posture confirmed on opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN132010_05B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 13, 2010 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO found the required three criteria were not met; the aggregate comments do not constitute a separate formal final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the claimed publication, original-contribution, authorship, and leading-role evidence insufficient and concluded the record did not establish the criteria or acclaim.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 9 |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The beneficiary was an electronic/electrical engineering researcher; the petition relied on published material, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and a project-lead role.; pages: 2; 4; 5; 8; 9
claim: The AAO found the evidence insufficient for published material, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role; research output and citations did not establish major significance or acclaim.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10
claim: The AAO concluded the beneficiary had not established eligibility and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 9; 10
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.