AAO research
EB-1A original contributions of major significance — AAO decision JUL242019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Scholarly authorship and leading/critical role were met. Patent-related original contributions were not shown to have major field impact; $108,000 salary did not place the beneficiary at the high end of comparable senior-scientist compensation.
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 EB-1A appeal/remand decision with case-specific procedural and evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL242019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 24, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal; initially four criteria found by Director, but AAO withdrew original-contributions and high-salary findings and dismissed after only two criteria remained; formal final merits not reached, with aggregate observations. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | After withdrawing two criterion findings, only two criteria remained; AAO expressly found formal final merits unnecessary, while giving aggregate negative acclaim observations. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Scholarly authorship and leading/critical role were met. Patent-related original contributions were not shown to have major field impact; $108,000 salary did not place the beneficiary at the high end of comparable senior-scientist compensation.
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was a molecular-diagnostics company petitioning for a beneficiary employed as an in-vitro diagnostic assay-development senior scientist.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Director found four criteria met; AAO agreed scholarly articles and leading/critical role in development of a molecular diagnostic test for sepsis were met.; pages: 2
claim: The patent-method was described as recovering microbial organisms from blood samples in under 45 minutes, but letters discussed potential impact and did not show measured field-wide influence.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Patent had 20 citing patent applications and was licensed/marketed, but the record did not establish extensive use/application or impact beyond employer.; pages: 4; 5
claim: The petitioner’s $108,000 2017 salary exceeded the comparison presented for biological scientists/molecular biologists, but evidence for senior scientists showed an $86,781 average and $250,000 high; the comparison did not show high-end pay for comparable senior scientists.; pages: 5; 6
claim: AAO withdrew Director’s original-contribution and high-salary findings; with judging and scholarly authorship only two remained, and appeal was dismissed.; pages: 5; 6; 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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.