AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision JUN082021_01B2203: Judging the work of others

EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision JUN082021_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision JUN082021_01B2203: dismissed. Judging and scholarly authorship were met; original contributions and leading/critical role were not. The three-criterion threshold failed, so no formal final merits.

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 AAO EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision or motion involving an AAO EB-1A decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID	JUN082021_01B2203
Decision date as printed	June 8, 2021
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A appellate decision, In Re 15508867
Procedural posture	Employer-petitioner appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed.
Operative disposition	dismissed
Final-merits status	The threshold failed; aggregate comments do not constitute a formal FMD.

What the AAO decision addressed

Judging and scholarly authorship were met; original contributions and leading/critical role were not. The three-criterion threshold failed, so no formal final merits.

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 coded — source PDF
Membership	Not coded — source PDF
Published material about the person	Not coded — source PDF
Judging the work of others	met — p. 2
Original contributions of major significance	Not met — p. 3, p. 4, p. 5
Scholarly authorship	met — p. 2
Artistic display or showcases	Not coded — source PDF
Leading or critical role	Not met — p. 5
High salary or remuneration	Not coded — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not coded — source PDF

Source-cited findings recorded in review

claim: The AAO affirmed the two accepted criteria—judging and scholarly authorship—but rejected original contributions and leading/critical role.; pages: 2; 3; 5
claim: Letters relied on highly technical descriptions that substantially reproduced the beneficiary’s own work, limiting their value as independent corroboration; citation evidence lacked comparative context.; pages: 3; 4; 5
claim: The beneficiary’s work was valuable to the employer, but organization-wide critical impact and sustained field recognition were not established.; pages: 5; 6
claim: Fewer than three criteria were met; appeal dismissed without formal final merits.; pages: 6

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion

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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Corroborat research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JUN082021_01B2203