AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN132017_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN132017_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Only judging and scholarly authorship were established. Awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not; patents, citation totals and letters did not establish major field impact. AAO did not conduct a formal final-merits determination after threshold failure, but aggregate evidence did not support the required expertise (pp. 2–7).
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 | JUN132017_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 13, 2017 |
Classification / field stated in source | Senior automation and control engineer in Texas. |
Procedural posture | De novo appeal; Director had found judging and scholarly authorship; AAO reviewed four additional claimed criteria and comparable evidence. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). |
Final-merits status | No formal final-merits determination because only two criteria were met; aggregate review found the required expertise level unsupported (p. 7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only judging and scholarly authorship were established. Awards, membership, published material and original contributions were not; patents, citation totals and letters did not establish major field impact. AAO did not conduct a formal final-merits determination after threshold failure, but aggregate evidence did not support the required expertise (pp. 2–7).
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 met |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | 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-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 2–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Narrow engineering comparison on conference awards, patent ownership versus field impact, citations, and comparable-evidence explanation. Nonprecedent. Individual source-linked summary; narrow engineering evidence comparison.
Editorial use note: Individual source-linked summary; narrow engineering evidence comparison.
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
Computing sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.