AAO research
EB-1A three-criterion threshold — AAO decision JUL012024_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; denial affirmed. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL012024_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; denial affirmed. The AAO adopts and affirms the Director’s individualized analysis. Peer review of a limited number of manuscripts, without distinction in quantity/quality relative to peers, did not show extraordinary ability; the totality including letters, publications, citation history, patents/funding, credentials and experience did not establish top-of-field 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_EB1A. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL012024_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 1, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; appeal decision |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal following Director’s finding of three criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly authorship) and unfavorable final merits. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; denial affirmed. |
Final-merits status | reached; unfavorable |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO adopts and affirms the Director’s individualized analysis. Peer review of a limited number of manuscripts, without distinction in quantity/quality relative to peers, did not show extraordinary ability; the totality including letters, publications, citation history, patents/funding, credentials and experience did not establish top-of-field 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 | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — 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
claim: Petitioner is a staff scientist in biomedical research, Ph.D. in biochemical engineering; proposed to continue research in U.S.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Director found judging, original contributions of major significance, and scholarly authorship; denied at final merits.; pages: 2
claim: AAO affirms the Director’s analysis; peer review volume/significance compared with peers was insufficient to change final-merits result.; pages: 3
claim: AAO concludes full record does not establish extraordinary ability or sustained top-of-field acclaim.; pages: 3; 4
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion_only
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Field, three Director-found criteria, and final-merits posture.
PDF page 4 — Totality, conclusion, and appeal-dismissed order.
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
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.