AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN022005_18B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN022005_18B2203: Appeal dismissed. The petitioner relied on research awards, publications/citations, patent and conference presentations, and roles at RPI/IBM. AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish at least three criteria and sustained acclaim. (pp. 3–9).
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 | JUN022005_18B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 2, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences; materials science and engineering researcher |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial of an EB-1A petition; AAO appellate review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | The decision discusses totality and concludes petitioner had not reached the top of the field; this is a formal final-merits determination. (p. 9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner relied on research awards, publications/citations, patent and conference presentations, and roles at RPI/IBM. AAO found the submitted evidence insufficient to establish at least three criteria and sustained acclaim. (pp. 3–9)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
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
Decision is from 2005; frame legal analysis and historical standards by decision date, and do not imply it states current agency policy. (pp. 2–9)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful cited science case for explaining citation quality, patent volume, and conference presentations in extraordinary-ability evaluation.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.