AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN072013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found scholarly authorship and judging evidence, but the petitioner did not establish three categories. The decision states final merits would be the next step if the threshold were met.
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: Source is an EB-1A decision; specific procedural posture and adjudicative-stage caveats are recorded separately.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN072013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 7, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability Form I-140 |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal from Texas Service Center denial of EB-1A petition; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The conclusion expressly treats final merits as the next step only if three evidentiary categories had been established; the threshold was not met. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found scholarly authorship and judging evidence, but the petitioner did not establish three categories. The decision states final merits would be the next step if the threshold were met.
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 — p. 4 |
Membership | Not met — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner sought extraordinary-ability classification in the sciences as a physician and researcher.; evidence_pages: 2; 3
claim: The AAO considered awards, membership, judging, original contributions, scholarly authorship, and leading role.; evidence_pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17
claim: Scholarly authorship was found met, but the overall antecedent three-category requirement was not satisfied.; evidence_pages: 13; 14; 17; 18
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.