AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JAN292021_12B2203: Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed; AAO agreed the petitioner met three criteria but…
Decision summary: AAO decision JAN292021_12B2203: Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed; AAO agreed the petitioner met three criteria but found the totality did not show he was already among the small percentage at the top of the field. (pp. 1, 3, 8–9). Published material about petitioner/work: met; judging: met; leading role for distinguished company: met (p. 3). The AAO discussed remaining claimed criteria in final-merits context; do not treat every discussed criterion as met.
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_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN292021_12B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 29, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | CEO in business; appeal from denial after Director found three initial criteria but denied on final merits. |
Procedural posture | CEO in business; appeal from denial after Director found three initial criteria but denied on final merits. Appeal dismissed; AAO agreed the petitioner met three criteria but found the totality did not show he was already among the small percentage at the top of the field. (pp. 1, 3, 8–9) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed; AAO agreed the petitioner met three criteria but found the totality did not show he was already among the small percentage at the top of the field. (pp. 1, 3, 8–9) |
Final-merits status | Reached and adverse: final-merits review found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim/top-of-field status; business-model/product impact lacked independent corroboration. (pp. 3, 7–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Published material about petitioner/work: met; judging: met; leading role for distinguished company: met (p. 3). The AAO discussed remaining claimed criteria in final-merits context; do not treat every discussed criterion as met.
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 | met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — 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 integrity hold; hold publication pending source-based editorial/legal review. Non-precedent decision. (pp. 1, 3, 7–9)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Potential individual case summary with a concise issue/outcome answer, criterion-by-criterion evidence table only where source explicitly supports it, dated procedural posture, page-cited quotations/paraphrases, and a link to the USCIS PDF. Avoid claiming precedential force or generalizing beyond the facts. Business-field final-merits example; comparison value specifically concerns independent evidence of market adoption/impact versus testimonial assertions.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.