AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN012022_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN012022_01B2203: dismissed. Director found three criteria met (awards, published material, commercial success); AAO left those threshold findings intact but concluded the record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
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: Source caption and analyzed filing identify an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition or motion.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN012022_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Jun. 1, 2022 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A appeal of Nebraska Service Center decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial; dismissed after final-merits review. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO conducted final merits and found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Director found three criteria met (awards, published material, commercial success); AAO left those threshold findings intact but concluded the record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
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 | |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
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 coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Director found awards, published material, and commercial success criteria met; AAO did not disturb those preliminary findings.; pages: 2
claim: Five national Chinese acting awards were documented, but most were roughly eight to ten years before filing; significance and current acclaim of the later award were not established.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Media coverage and a commercially successful film showed some industry recognition, but comparative circulation and evidence setting petitioner apart from other actors were lacking.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Final merits failed because acclaim was not shown sustained/current or sufficient to establish top-of-field status; appeal dismissed.; pages: 5; 6
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
Published material about the person research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.