AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN052009_09B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN052009_09B2203: Appeal dismissed. The petitioner argued criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii); AAO found none established. It also concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim at the top of the field. (pp. 3–10).
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 | JUN052009_09B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 5, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO EB-1A sciences case concerning a senior clinical research scientist in vision/ophthalmic research. (pp. 2–3) |
Procedural posture | Appeal of service-center denial; AAO dismissed. (pp. 1–2, 10) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | AAO concluded the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing the beneficiary at the top of her field; no separate Kazarian-style aggregate section is labeled. (p. 10) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner argued criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii); AAO found none established. It also concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim at the top of the field. (pp. 3–10)
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 — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
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
No source identity or completeness hold. The source contains OCR/extraction artifacts and redactions; claims should be checked against page images and quoted only with care.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If editorially cleared, prepare a source-linked decision summary that names the procedural posture, distinguishes criterion-stage findings from final merits, and cites the PDF pages. Narrow comparison for clinical vision research: citation counts, authorship/translation issues, review activity, and postdoctoral role evidence.
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
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Translat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.