AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUL232007_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The decision found no qualifying evidence under the claimed criteria and held that the asserted paranormal healing field was not shown to be a valid science under the statutory classification.
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 | JUL232007_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 23, 2007 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | After two late appeals were terminated, director reopened on own motion, issued RFE and a new denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy decision provides an overall acclaim conclusion but no separate modern final-merits analysis. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The decision found no qualifying evidence under the claimed criteria and held that the asserted paranormal healing field was not shown to be a valid science under the statutory classification.
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 | |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 8 |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — p. 8 |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
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: AAO held petitioner had not shown bioenergy therapy to be a valid science; it excluded paranormal/religious healing claims from the enumerated statutory fields and found patient anecdotes inadequate.; pages: 3; 4; 5
claim: The Golden Statuette award lacked evidence of recognition and excellence in the sciences; membership requirements and expert review were not established.; pages: 6; 7
claim: Published-material evidence lacked corroboration; original scientific contributions lacked peer-reviewed confirmation; leadership evidence did not establish distinguished scientific organizations.; pages: 8; 9
claim: Appeal dismissed.; pages: 2; 10
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
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.