AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision JAN212010_01B2203: Appeal disposition

EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision JAN212010_01B2203: Appeal dismissed under summary-dismissal rule. Review source status, procedural posture and the…

Decision summary: AAO decision JAN212010_01B2203: Appeal dismissed under summary-dismissal rule. Counsel did not specify ignored evidence or erroneous conclusion, despite broad claims about substantive evidence, original contributions, and leadership; promised brief was never filed after approximately seven months.

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_AAO_decision_precedent_status_not_marked_on_face. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID	JAN212010_01B2203
Decision date as printed	January 21, 2010
Classification / field stated in source	Business.
Procedural posture	Nebraska Service Center denial; appeal summarily dismissed because counsel made general claims about evidence/criteria and omitted promised brief.
Operative disposition	Appeal dismissed under summary-dismissal rule.
Final-merits status	Not reached

What the AAO decision addressed

Counsel did not specify ignored evidence or erroneous conclusion, despite broad claims about substantive evidence, original contributions, and leadership; promised brief was never filed after approximately seven months.

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 reached — source PDF
Membership	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Published material about the person	Not reached — source PDF
Judging the work of others	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Leading or critical role	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not reached This AAO decision resolves filing, standing, jurisdiction, appeal specificity, or motion requirements; it does not decide any EB-1A criterion in the current decision. — source PDF

Source holds and limits

status:

Specific caveats recorded by the reviewer

Director’s criteria evaluation is summarized only as procedural context; current AAO decision does not re-evaluate those criteria.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

claim: Cover identifies January 21, 2010; Nebraska Service Center; EB-1A I-140.; pages: 1
claim: Petitioner sought extraordinary ability in business; Director found no major international award and fewer than three criteria.; pages: 2
claim: Counsel generally alleged failure to consider evidence of original contributions/patents and leading role but identified no specific evidence/error; Director had reviewed eight criteria, including 11 patents and a research-project-manager position.; pages: 2
claim: Counsel promised brief within 30 days; approximately seven months later AAO had received nothing further.; pages: 2
claim: AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify erroneous legal/factual conclusion or provide additional evidence.; pages: 2

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: narrow_procedural_explainer_only

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
Membership 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
Entrepreneurship sector research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JAN212010_01B2203