AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUL132005_08B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found the petitioner did not meet three criteria and emphasized the priority-date rule: subsequent publications, reviews and citations could not cure the record at filing.
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 an AAO decision on a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition; comparison caveats preserve unusual field or procedural details.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL132005_08B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 13, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial of Form I-140; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy 2005 decision provides an overall acclaim conclusion but no distinct Kazarian final-merits step. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the petitioner did not meet three criteria and emphasized the priority-date rule: subsequent publications, reviews and citations could not cure the record at filing.
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 considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 3 |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner’s filing date was January 15, 2003; much of the supporting media, peer-review, and research evidence arose after filing and could not establish eligibility as of that date.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 8
claim: Original contributions were not established; conference presentations and letters described potential future impact without demonstrating influence across the research community.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: Scholarly authorship/citation record did not show sufficient acclaim at filing; only three citations existed by then for the cited 2001/2002 papers.; pages: 7; 8
claim: The AAO found overall acclaim/top-of-field standing not established and dismissed appeal.; pages: 8; 9
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
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.