AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JAN182005_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The claimed fellowships, ACS membership, judging, original contributions, authorship and institutional role did not establish the required acclaim or criteria threshold.
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 is an AAO decision on a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition; unusual field and procedural distinctions are preserved in the facts/caveats.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN182005_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 18, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of California Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy 2005 decision contains an overall acclaim conclusion but no separate Kazarian final-merits step. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The claimed fellowships, ACS membership, judging, original contributions, authorship and institutional role did not establish the required acclaim or criteria threshold.
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 | |
Membership | Not met — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 8 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 8 |
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 AAO found student research stipends/fellowships were not awards for excellence in a field of endeavor; ACS membership did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Routine manuscript peer review did not establish acclaim; patented research and letters did not demonstrate major field-wide impact beyond collaborators.; pages: 5; 6; 7
claim: Scholarly authorship was not shown to be influential: independent citation counts were limited; a postdoctoral role was not shown to be leading/critical for the institution.; pages: 8; 9
claim: The AAO found sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing was not established and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 9
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.
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
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.