AAO research
EB-1A leading or critical role — AAO decision JUN172005_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision JUN172005_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. The petitioner did not establish at least three criteria. Awards were local/institutional or age-limited and/or post-filing; media and judging evidence did not establish the requisite national scope/professional level; letters did not show field-wide impact; routine performances and roles did not establish acclaim; claimed CD sales postdated filing and lacked comparative commercial significance (pp. 3–8).
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 | JUN172005_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 14, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Tabla/Indian music performer, described as a musician in the performing arts. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial; legacy AAO decision dismissed the appeal. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. |
Final-merits status | Adverse aggregate review; AAO concluded criteria threshold and sustained-acclaim standard were not met (p. 8). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner did not establish at least three criteria. Awards were local/institutional or age-limited and/or post-filing; media and judging evidence did not establish the requisite national scope/professional level; letters did not show field-wide impact; routine performances and roles did not establish acclaim; claimed CD sales postdated filing and lacked comparative commercial significance (pp. 3–8).
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 — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — 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 met — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Legacy performer comparator for contemporaneous evidence, geographic audience, professional-level judging, and commercial data measured against filing date. Preserve date-specific legal context. Individual case page with readable page images and explicit filing-date caveat; privacy redactions are part of source.
Editorial use note: Individual case page with readable page images and explicit filing-date caveat; privacy redactions are part of source.
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
Leading or critical role research
Performance sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.