AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision JUN112008_02B2203: AAO dismissed the appeal or affirmed the denial; the petition remained denied. (last page; see posture…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN112008_02B2203: AAO dismissed the appeal or affirmed the denial; the petition remained denied. (last page; see posture and outcome citations). The petition did not establish at least three qualifying criteria or sustained top-of-field acclaim. The decision separately discusses prior O-1 approvals as not controlling. (pp. 12-13).
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 | JUN112008_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 11, 2008 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition in industrial engineering, operations research and management science; petitioner was an IT/business-development executive working on e-business and supply-chain methodologies. (pp. 1-3) |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial; AAO dismissed. (pp. 1-2, 13) |
Operative disposition | AAO dismissed the appeal or affirmed the denial; the petition remained denied. (last page; see posture and outcome citations) |
Final-merits status | No distinct final-merits determination; AAO found insufficient initial criteria and insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim. (pp. 12-13) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petition did not establish at least three qualifying criteria or sustained top-of-field acclaim. The decision separately discusses prior O-1 approvals as not controlling. (pp. 12-13)
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 — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | 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 coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No identity/completeness hold. Historical decision; preserve its specific discussion of prior O-1 approvals and avoid implying it applies to every petition.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Could support a case-linked explainer separating patent issuance, authorship/citations, and evidence of major impact across a technical field.
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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Performance sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.