AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JUL262012_02B2203: AAO dismissed the appeal and the petition remained denied. Review source status, procedural posture and…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL262012_02B2203: AAO dismissed the appeal and the petition remained denied. AAO found fewer than three criteria. Although authorship was met, the other claimed categories were not; the AAO also reviewed aggregate evidence and found it did not show top-of-field expertise (pp. 5-15).
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: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL262012_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 26, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition for a professor/researcher in advanced computation in biological engineering (pp. 2, 5). |
Procedural posture | Texas Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 16). |
Operative disposition | AAO dismissed the appeal and the petition remained denied. |
Final-merits status | The AAO discussed a final-merits determination and found aggregate evidence insufficient to show the required expertise/acclaim, notwithstanding one criterion met (pp. 15-16). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found fewer than three criteria. Although authorship was met, the other claimed categories were not; the AAO also reviewed aggregate evidence and found it did not show top-of-field expertise (pp. 5-15).
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 met — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No source hold. Do not collapse the two field descriptions; AAO addressed bioengineering and advanced computation in biological engineering (p. 2).
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: A source-cited explainer can show that peer-reviewed authorship may meet one criterion while impact, institutional role, and salary evidence remain separate questions (pp. 8-15).
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
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
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.