AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JAN182005_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Every discussed criterion is rejected; salary was not claimed. AAO explicitly notes failure of three criteria and separately describes aggregate evidence as insufficient.
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 concerning an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN182005_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 18, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO appeal from denial of an EB-1A Form I-140. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | No criterion was accepted; AAO says the initial threshold was unmet and dismisses. Page 9 gives an adverse assessment of the record, not a formal second-stage final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Every discussed criterion is rejected; salary was not claimed. AAO explicitly notes failure of three criteria and separately describes aggregate evidence as insufficient.
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 | |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner sought classification as a research scientist in the sciences.; evidence_pages: 2; 3
claim: AAO rejected awards, membership, published-material, judging, original-contributions and leading-role criteria; scholarly authorship was also rejected because citation record did not show national acclaim.; evidence_pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: AAO concluded the researcher showed talent but not sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing; dismissed. The decision’s page 9 aggregate discussion is adverse, while the statutory three-criterion gate failed.; evidence_pages: 9
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
Medicine sector research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.