Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Judging, original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary were not established; the petitioner’s project work and estimated pay were not substantiated as field-level acclaim.

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: The source is an AAO EB-1A appeal or related motion with decision-specific procedural/evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

What the AAO decision addressed

Judging, original contributions, leading/critical role, and high salary were not established; the petitioner’s project work and estimated pay were not substantiated as field-level acclaim.

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.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

• claim: The petitioner sought classification as a business intelligence systems analyst/developer and submitted letters from employers/colleagues, company material, and compensation assertions.; pages: 2; 3

• claim: One Kforce interview activity was not shown to be sustained acclaim or judging beyond employment duties.; pages: 3

• claim: Letters described drill-through, MDX optimization, and XML-based BI work, but lacked corroboration of adoption or impact beyond employer projects.; pages: 4; 5

• claim: Project-level consultant work for Hewlett-Packard and Waste Management did not establish an organization- or distinguished-division-level leading/critical role.; pages: 5; 6

• claim: Claimed annual compensation estimates lacked primary evidence that the petitioner actually received the amounts; the comparison used an inadequately matched job category.; pages: 6; 7

• claim: AAO found the record showed a talented analyst but not sustained acclaim/top-of-field status and dismissed.; pages: 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.

• PDF page 1 — Opening page visually inspected; printed date, identity, classification, field, and procedural posture checked.

• PDF page 2 — Analysis page visually inspected in sequence; decision findings and criterion states are pinpointed in the cited findings.

• PDF page 3 — Analysis page visually inspected in sequence; decision findings and criterion states are pinpointed in the cited findings.

• PDF page 4 — Analysis page visually inspected in sequence; decision findings and criterion states are pinpointed in the cited findings.

• PDF page 5 — Analysis page visually inspected in sequence; decision findings and criterion states are pinpointed in the cited findings.

• PDF page 6 — Analysis page visually inspected in sequence; decision findings and criterion states are pinpointed in the cited findings.

• PDF page 7 — Final physical page visually inspected; disposition and operative order checked.

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

• Judging the work of others research

• Original contributions of major significance research

• Leading or critical role research

• High salary or remuneration research

• Entrepreneurship sector research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JUN022005_15B2203