AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUL282009_08B2203: Appeal dismissed; record did not establish acclaim, comparable evidence, or realistic intent to continue…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL282009_08B2203: Appeal dismissed; record did not establish acclaim, comparable evidence, or realistic intent to continue work in the claimed field. (pp. 2–5, 10–11). Awards: not met; training/employment evidence did not establish qualifying prizes (pp. 6–7). Published material: not met; media evidence was insufficient to establish major circulation/about-petitioner requirements (pp. 8–9). Leading/critical role: not met; organizational charts did not show distinguished organization or qualifying role (pp. 9–10). Comparable evidence: not met; petitioner did not show why regulatory criteria were inapplicable or how evidence was comparable (p. 11).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL282009_08B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 28, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | Agrarian reform/hybrid rice specialist seeking to continue work in the United States; appeal from Texas Service Center denial. |
Procedural posture | Agrarian reform/hybrid rice specialist seeking to continue work in the United States; appeal from Texas Service Center denial. Appeal dismissed; record did not establish acclaim, comparable evidence, or realistic intent to continue work in the claimed field. (pp. 2–5, 10–11) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; record did not establish acclaim, comparable evidence, or realistic intent to continue work in the claimed field. (pp. 2–5, 10–11) |
Final-merits status | No formal Kazarian final-merits step; overall acclaim, initial criteria, and continued-work issues supported dismissal. (pp. 10–11) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Awards: not met; training/employment evidence did not establish qualifying prizes (pp. 6–7). Published material: not met; media evidence was insufficient to establish major circulation/about-petitioner requirements (pp. 8–9). Leading/critical role: not met; organizational charts did not show distinguished organization or qualifying role (pp. 9–10). Comparable evidence: not met; petitioner did not show why regulatory criteria were inapplicable or how evidence was comparable (p. 11).
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 |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Hold for exact criterion transcription and careful continued-work context; adverse non-precedent.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If later published, use a source-cited, decision-specific summary with procedural posture, only source-supported criterion states, page references, and a direct USCIS PDF link. Do not present a non-precedent outcome as a general rule. Agricultural-specialist case focused on proving intended U.S. work and comparable evidence; do not generalize to agriculture petitions broadly.
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
Awards research
Published material about the person research
Leading or critical role research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.