AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN052009_04B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN052009_04B2203: Appeal dismissed. The AAO found no three-criterion threshold and no evidence showing sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. It noted evidence of dedication/authorship but not major-significance impact. (pp. 3–11).
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 | JUN052009_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Date field is not legible in the public-copy scan; decision identifier indicates June 5, 2009 but is not treated as independent source verification. |
Classification / field stated in source | Scientist/pharmacognosy researcher; source describes a pharmacy degree and work on crude botanicals, herbal/pharmacognosy subjects. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; self-represented petitioner submitted a statement and additional evidence. (pp. 2–3) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | No formal Kazarian section. The decision’s totality discussion concludes that the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. (pp. 10–11) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed. The AAO found no three-criterion threshold and no evidence showing sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. It noted evidence of dedication/authorship but not major-significance impact. (pp. 3–11)
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 met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
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
The public-copy decision date is not legible in the rendered header; retain date uncertainty unless independently verified from an authoritative source. (p. 1); AAO recognized the petitioner as a dedicated author while rejecting major significance; do not reduce this to “no publications” or conflate authorship and impact. (pp. 9–10)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Potential source-cited explainer on the distinction between extensive writing/research activity and independently corroborated major impact in pharmacognosy.
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
Judging the work of others research
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Corroborat research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.