AAO research
EB-1A original contributions of major significance — AAO decision JAN292021_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN292021_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. The petitioner does not meet the original-contributions criterion: recommendation letters and examples of projects do not establish that the petitioner’s work was widely implemented or of major significance. Fewer than three criteria are established and aggregate record does not show sustained acclaim.
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: In scope; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN292021_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 29, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A; architectural designer |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | "not met" |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner does not meet the original-contributions criterion: recommendation letters and examples of projects do not establish that the petitioner’s work was widely implemented or of major significance. Fewer than three criteria are established and aggregate record does not show sustained acclaim.
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–5; each criterion basis includes pinpoint page citations.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Architect example for distinguishing participation in notable projects and positive letters from independently documented impact attributable to the architect. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Cover: architectural designer, appeal and date.
PDF page 2 — Project history; director found two criteria; claimed original contributions.
PDF page 3 — Letters from collaborators/publishers and significance analysis.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Performance sector research
Other Named Professions sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.