AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN132005_31B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The decision concludes the initial evidentiary threshold was not met; no separate formal final-merits stage.
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 appeal decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN132005_31B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 13, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | Appeal from EB-1A denial; older AAO format; first physical PDF page is privacy/cover sheet and the decision text follows. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision concludes the initial evidentiary threshold was not met; no separate formal final-merits stage. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The decision concludes the initial evidentiary threshold was not met; no separate formal final-merits stage.
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 | |
Membership | Not met — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 7 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 8 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 8 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petition seeks classification as security systems developer; Director found no sustained acclaim.; evidence_pages: 2
claim: Awards claim evaluated; degree/academic honors are not recognized field awards.; evidence_pages: 3
claim: Awards rejected; association membership evidence rejected.; evidence_pages: 4
claim: Original-contribution evidence of perimeter-protection system examined; impact beyond employer not shown.; evidence_pages: 5
claim: Conference participation and patent evidence discussed; no major significance shown.; evidence_pages: 6
claim: Original contributions rejected; scholarly-authorship claim evaluated.; evidence_pages: 7
claim: Leading/critical role and high-remuneration claims rejected.; evidence_pages: 8
claim: AAO concludes fewer than three criteria and dismisses appeal.; evidence_pages: 9
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
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.