AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JUL132017_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL132017_01B2203: dismissed. The Director had credited judging and scholarly authorship. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not established; only two criteria remained.
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 complete AAO EB-1A decision or motion involving an EB-1A proceeding.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL132017_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2017-07-13 |
Classification / field stated in source | Nonprecedent AAO EB-1A decision or motion proceeding |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial of a Form I-140 EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO did not make a final-merits determination because the initial criterion threshold was not established. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The Director had credited judging and scholarly authorship. The AAO found original contributions and leading/critical role not established; only two criteria remained.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
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 record documented peer review and scholarly authorship, which the Director accepted. (pp. 2, 6); pages: 2; 6
claim: The AAO found the petitioner did not show that research findings had major significance in the field. (pp. 2–5); pages: 2; 5
claim: The petitioner did not establish a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. (pp. 5–6); pages: 5; 6
claim: With fewer than three criteria established, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits. (p. 7); pages: 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
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.