AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JAN292021_05B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN292021_05B2203: Appeal dismissed. Judging and scholarly authorship met; original contributions not met; below three initial criteria. AAO identifies copied/near-identical expert-letter language, lack of specific authorship/contribution evidence, and citation evidence insufficient to establish major field impact.
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_EB1A_individual_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN292021_05B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 29, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A appeal decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; AAO de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Not reached_initial_threshold_failed; aggregate unfavorable |
What the AAO decision addressed
Judging and scholarly authorship met; original contributions not met; below three initial criteria. AAO identifies copied/near-identical expert-letter language, lack of specific authorship/contribution evidence, and citation evidence insufficient to establish major field impact.
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 | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
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 holds and limits
"No source hold."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Oncologist met judging and scholarly authorship criteria, but not original contributions; appeal failed initial threshold.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5
claim: AAO questioned near-identical expert-letter language and found citation/study attribution insufficient to establish major significance.; pages: 3; 4; 5
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: in_scope_EB1A_individual_decision
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Degrees/medical history; three claimed criteria and only two met.
PDF page 3 — Original contribution claims and overlapping expert letters.
PDF page 4 — Questionable letter provenance, guideline citations and study attribution.
PDF page 5 — Further citation cases and threshold/aggregate 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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.