AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN092020_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN092020_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected awards, membership, and original contributions; leading/critical role was also not established. Patent/product and research evidence did not show realized field-wide impact. The totality did not establish sustained acclaim (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 | JUN092020_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 9, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A sciences appeal; petitioner is a pharmacology researcher and associate professor in Malaysia. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial after director found initial criteria met but denied at final merits; AAO dismissed (pp. 1–2, 6). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Explicit final-merits determination: adverse. The record did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing despite judging and authorship (pp. 2, 5–6). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected awards, membership, and original contributions; leading/critical role was also not established. Patent/product and research evidence did not show realized field-wide impact. The totality did not establish sustained acclaim (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 | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | 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-cited findings recorded in review
Citations refer to physical PDF pages; every physical page visually inspected in page order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong science/research example on patents, early commercial products and authorship not substituting for documented field impact; also an explicit final-merits case. Potential individual case page with final-merits findings distinct from the two accepted criteria. No CMS edits or publication were made.
Editorial use note: Potential individual case page with final-merits findings distinct from the two accepted criteria. 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
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.