AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUL052005_12B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL052005_12B2203: dismissed. Leading/critical role was accepted, but the overall record did not establish the required acclaim or extraordinary ability.
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: Complete AAO decision addressing a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL052005_12B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2005-07-05 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial of a Form I-140 EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed after final-merits review. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision assesses the evidence in the aggregate and concludes it does not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Leading/critical role was accepted, but the overall record did not establish the required acclaim or extraordinary ability.
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 met — p. 3 |
Membership | Not met — p. 3 |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — p. 4 |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 5 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 5 |
Commercial success in the performing arts |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was a television/film executive and programming developer in Australia; the AAO considered awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, leading/critical role, high salary, and commercial success. (pp. 2–6); pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: The AAO found one criterion, leading/critical role, satisfied, but found the other criteria did not establish a qualifying award, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, high salary, or commercial success. (pp. 3–6); pages: 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: The AAO’s totality discussion found the record did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing; appeal dismissed. (pp. 6–7); pages: 6; 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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.