AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUL162014_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL162014_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Two criteria met (judging and scholarly authorship); the three-criterion gate was not met. Page 9 distinguishes aggregate observation from formal final merits.
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 concerning an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL162014_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 16, 2014 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO appeal from denial of an EB-1A Form I-140. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly states the petitioner failed the three-criterion requirement and that a formal final-merits determination is unnecessary; it nonetheless makes an aggregate negative observation. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Two criteria met (judging and scholarly authorship); the three-criterion gate was not met. Page 9 distinguishes aggregate observation from formal final merits.
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 | |
Membership | abandoned — p. 6 |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 8 |
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 sought classification as a scholar and researcher in classical Greek and Iranian philosophy.; evidence_pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO accepted judging and scholarly-authorship criteria; it rejected awards and original contributions, while membership was abandoned.; evidence_pages: 2; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: AAO stated the initial three-criterion threshold was not met; it discussed the total record negatively and dismissed the appeal without a formal final-merits determination.; evidence_pages: 9
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Final Merits research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.