AAO research
EB-1A leading or critical role — AAO decision JUL302021_02B2203: Appeal dismissed after formal final-merits review. Review source status, procedural…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUL302021_02B2203: Appeal dismissed after formal final-merits review. AAO affirmed two criteria, added a third criterion for judging, then found the totality did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. (pp. 2–9).
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 | JUL302021_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | July 30, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Postdoctoral associate/researcher in computational chemistry. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; petitioner asserted eligibility based on judging, scholarly authorship, original contributions and acclaim. (pp. 1–2) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed after formal final-merits review. |
Final-merits status | Formal section titled “B. Final Merits Determination.” Although three initial criteria were established, AAO found citation data, peer review, letters and other evidence insufficient to establish sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing. (pp. 3–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed after formal final-merits review. AAO affirmed two criteria, added a third criterion for judging, then found the totality did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. (pp. 2–9)
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 | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — 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
Do not state all criteria failed; AAO accepted three criteria, then denied after a separate final-merits determination. (pp. 2–3, 9); Non-precedent decision; cite as an individual example. (p. 1)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Case-specific guide distinguishing evidence that meets judging/authorship/original-contribution criteria from evidence of broad sustained acclaim at final merits.
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
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.