AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JAN142010_02B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved (pp. 2, 8). Review source status, procedural…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN142010_02B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved (pp. 2, 8). AAO found at least three criteria, including judging, original contributions, and scholarly authorship. It credited the record’s research findings, independent recognition, citations and industry collaboration and concluded the total evidence showed sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability (pp. 3–8).
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 | JAN142010_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 14, 2010 |
Classification / field stated in source | Biochemical engineering researcher in biofilm research, with work on biofilm formation/inhibition and industrial biocorrosion. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from denial of EB-1A petition; AAO sustained the appeal and approved the petition. |
Operative disposition | Appeal sustained; petition approved (pp. 2, 8). |
Final-merits status | AAO considered the totality and found an overall pattern of sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability; continued work and prospective U.S. benefit were also established (p. 8). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found at least three criteria, including judging, original contributions, and scholarly authorship. It credited the record’s research findings, independent recognition, citations and industry collaboration and concluded the total evidence showed sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability (pp. 3–8).
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 2–8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong positive, narrow biomedical-engineering/biofilm comparator: distinguish multiple evidenced discoveries, research-community recognition, citations and applied industrial collaboration. Historic decision; do not generalize its fact pattern as a current adjudication rule. Individual source-linked positive case summary; eligible for carefully bounded biofilm-research comparison.
Editorial use note: Individual source-linked positive case summary; eligible for carefully bounded biofilm-research comparison.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.