AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JUL152021_03B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL152021_03B2203: dismissed. Only two criteria; appeal dismissed after unfavorable aggregate discussion.
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: EB-1A AAO appellate or motion decision; reviewed for source-grounded findings and procedural posture.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL152021_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 15, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | No formal final-merits determination after initial threshold failed; aggregate acclaim discussion unfavorable. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only two criteria; appeal dismissed after unfavorable aggregate discussion.
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 | |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
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: ICON-S membership criterion not met: evidence did not show outstanding-achievement admission judged by recognized experts.; pages: 2; 3
claim: PhD thesis and letters did not establish original contributions of major significance; no detailed field impact shown.; pages: 3; 4; 5
claim: Scholarly authorship met based on peer-reviewed journal/conference papers.; pages: 5
claim: Only two criteria; appeal dismissed after unfavorable aggregate discussion.; pages: 5; 6
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Narrow comparison for association criteria, expert letters about thesis, and scholarly-authorship evidence in law.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual page; aggregate only with procedural and date caveats preserved.
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
Membership research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Public Service sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.