AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JAN292021_09B2203: Motion dismissed petition denial affirmed. Review source status, procedural posture and…
Decision summary: The AAO Motion dismissed_petition_denial_affirmed The AAO accepted scholarly authorship and new evidence of judging but found original contributions of major significance unproven, leaving fewer than three criteria.
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: Decision identifies an applied mechanics engineer seeking EB-1A on Form I-140. (p. 1). This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN292021_09B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 29, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A motion decision on AAO decision. |
Procedural posture | Motion to reopen/reconsider AAO decision; motion granted in part on judging evidence, but the petition remained denied and the motion was dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Motion dismissed_petition_denial_affirmed |
Final-merits status | The petitioner did not establish three criteria; no final-merits determination was reached. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO accepted scholarly authorship and new evidence of judging but found original contributions of major significance unproven, leaving fewer than three criteria.
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 | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
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
claim: On motion, the AAO found new evidence sufficient to establish completed peer review activity for judging, distinguishing it from a conference review the petitioner had merely agreed to perform.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Scholarly authorship remained established from the prior decision.; pages: 1; 3
claim: The AAO found expert letters described originality and potential utility but did not show unusual influence, broad acceptance, or major significance of the petitioner’s engineering work.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: The AAO concluded the petitioner had not established a third criterion and dismissed the motion, leaving the denial in place.; pages: 3; 7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Computing sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.