AAO research
EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision JUN012021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (see cited pages). Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN012021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (see cited pages). Two criteria were met (judging and scholarly articles). Contributions of major significance were not established; other criteria the petitioner did not claim were treated as waived. (pp. 2–7).
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 | JUN012021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 1, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Physical sciences/materials research involving functional oxide thin films and related applications. |
Procedural posture | Appeal following revocation of prior EB-1A approval; AAO dismissed the appeal. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (see cited pages). |
Final-merits status | Not reached as a separate final-merits determination because the petitioner did not establish three criteria; AAO dismissed the appeal after revocation. (pp. 3, 6–7) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Two criteria were met (judging and scholarly articles). Contributions of major significance were not established; other criteria the petitioner did not claim were treated as waived. (pp. 2–7)
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 | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
(p. 3)
(pp. 2–7)
(pp. 3, 6–7)
(pp. 3–6)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful research comparator on judging and scholarly authorship versus proof that research contributions had major significance. Individual case page; make the revocation posture prominent and do not describe this as an ordinary denial appeal.
Editorial use note: Individual case page; make the revocation posture prominent and do not describe this as an ordinary denial appeal.
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
Medicine sector research
Performance sector research
Revocation research
Waiv research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.