AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JAN302018_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Director accepted judging and leading/critical role, but no third criterion was established; contributions, authorship, high salary, commercial success, and comparable-evidence claims failed.
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: The source is a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JAN302018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | January 30, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; AAO de novo review; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Fewer than three criteria; the decision expressly says it need not provide formal final merits. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Director accepted judging and leading/critical role, but no third criterion was established; contributions, authorship, high salary, commercial success, and comparable-evidence claims failed.
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 | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 2 |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not met — p. 7 |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The Director found judging and leading/critical role met; AAO reviewed the claimed contribution criterion and rejected it because designs/research did not show field-wide major impact.; pages: 2; 3; 4
claim: The authorship claim failed because evidence did not meet the criterion’s publication/authorship requirements; salary and commercial-success evidence did not satisfy their criteria.; pages: 5; 6; 7
claim: Comparable evidence failed because the petitioner did not explain why criteria were not readily applicable to a civil engineer or how submitted material was comparable.; pages: 8
claim: The appeal was dismissed without formal final merits after failure to satisfy three criteria.; pages: 8
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
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Computing sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.