AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN032005_13B2203: Motion granted; prior AAO decision affirmed and petition denied (p. 6). Review source status, procedural…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN032005_13B2203: Motion granted; prior AAO decision affirmed and petition denied (p. 6). The petitioner was not established as a named Daytime Emmy recipient; even if named, the decision found the award did not qualify as internationally recognized. Membership did not require outstanding achievement, judging was not established, letters lacked specific original field contributions, employer role/reputation evidence was insufficient, and a standard guild-rate job offer did not show high salary (pp. 3–6).
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 | JUN032005_13B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 3, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A arts motion to reconsider; petitioner was a sound re-recording engineer. |
Procedural posture | Motion to reconsider an earlier AAO dismissal. AAO granted the motion, affirmed its prior decision, and denied the petition; operative order affirms the AAO decision of June 1, 2004 (pp. 2, 6). |
Operative disposition | Motion granted; prior AAO decision affirmed and petition denied (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Older decision concludes on the aggregate record that petitioner was talented and valued but did not establish extraordinary ability; this motion decision affirms the earlier adverse result (p. 6). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner was not established as a named Daytime Emmy recipient; even if named, the decision found the award did not qualify as internationally recognized. Membership did not require outstanding achievement, judging was not established, letters lacked specific original field contributions, employer role/reputation evidence was insufficient, and a standard guild-rate job offer did not show high salary (pp. 3–6).
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 coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Page references are physical PDF pages; all physical pages were visually inspected in order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Narrow historical audio-engineer example about named award-recipient proof and limits of employer letters; must be presented as a motion linked to its June 1, 2004 underlying AAO decision, not as a standalone appeal. Potential motion-history case page only if paired with the underlying June 1, 2004 AAO decision and clearly labeled historical/nonprecedent. No CMS edits or publication were made.
Editorial use note: Potential motion-history case page only if paired with the underlying June 1, 2004 AAO decision and clearly labeled historical/nonprecedent. No CMS edits or publication were made.
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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Computing sector research
Performance sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.