AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JUL282022_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The record did not establish original contributions of major significance or the required initial threshold; final merits was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.
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: Complete identity-matched AAO decision concerning EB-1A eligibility or motion review of such eligibility.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUL282022_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2022-07-28 |
Classification / field stated in source | research scientist in neuroscience, currently a postdoctoral researcher; EB-1A petition |
Procedural posture | Appeal from denial of EB-1A petition. Director found judging and scholarly authorship; AAO reviews original contributions and finds the evidence insufficient, leaving fewer than three criteria; dismisses. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The record did not establish original contributions of major significance or the required initial threshold; final merits was not reached and the appeal was dismissed. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The record did not establish original contributions of major significance or the required initial threshold; final merits was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
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 worked as a postdoctoral researcher in neuroscience.; pages: 1; 2
claim: The Director found judging and scholarly-authorship criteria met; AAO did not sustain original contributions.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: AAO did not reach final merits and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 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
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
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.