AAO research
EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision JAN202006_02B2203: Appeal sustained. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN202006_02B2203: Appeal sustained. The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_eb1a_decision_or_related_proceeding. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN202006_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Not stated in normalized review fields |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial of EB-1A petition.; citation_pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; classification: Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial of EB-1A petition. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Appeal sustained.', 'basis': 'The AAO sustained the appeal on the older record, describing the petitioner’s research as a series of significant and original contributions, including discovery of metal-cluster structures and development of a synthesis methodology. The source evaluates exceptional ability under the pre-2008 framework.', 'citation_pages': [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]} |
Final-merits status | Decision predates the modern two-step final-merits framework; outcome is an appeal sustained under the older regulation. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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 considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
true
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'eligible_for_narrow_comparison': False, 'fit': 'Potential historical chemistry example only after legal review; not a current-law EB-1A approval comparator.', 'caveats': 'Older regulatory analysis; do not convert its exceptional-ability discussion into current-law criteria or final-merits claims.'}
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.