AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JAN252011_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO found scholarly authorship met, judging and leading/critical role unmet, and treated awards, original contributions, and high salary as abandoned on appeal. It separately found final merits unmet.
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: Opening page identifies an EB-1A petition and final page confirms appeal disposition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN252011_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 25, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of EB-1A denial; dismissed after final-merits review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly conducted final-merits review and found the authorship and clinical duties evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found scholarly authorship met, judging and leading/critical role unmet, and treated awards, original contributions, and high salary as abandoned on appeal. It separately found final merits unmet.
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 | abandoned — p. 2 |
Membership | Not considered — p. 2 |
Published material about the person | Not considered — p. 2 |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | abandoned — p. 2 |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — p. 2 |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | abandoned — p. 2 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — p. 2 |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on neonatal medicine and clinical-care work.; pages: 1; 2
claim: On appeal, awards, original contributions, and high salary were abandoned; AAO found judging and leading/critical role unmet but scholarly authorship met.; pages: 2; 13
claim: AAO conducted final-merits review and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 11; 15
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
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.