AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN242005_19B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected awards, membership, and original contributions. Only two regulatory criteria were satisfied; appeal dismissed after overall acclaim analysis.
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: The source is a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN242005_19B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 24, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial of Form I-140; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Only two criteria were accepted; the 2005 decision contains overall acclaim discussion, not a separate modern final-merits step. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected awards, membership, and original contributions. Only two regulatory criteria were satisfied; appeal dismissed after overall acclaim analysis.
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 met — p. 5 |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 8 |
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
claim: Petitioner sought classification as a mechanical engineering researcher; at filing he was a research associate in mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland.; pages: 2
claim: Award certificates did not establish national/international recognition; association membership lacked bylaws/admission criteria; Marquis Who’s Who evidence was not shown to be published before filing or related to work in the field.; pages: 3; 4; 5
claim: AAO agreed that judging evidence was adequate; original contributions were not shown to have major field-wide significance despite letters describing research and potential applications.; pages: 5; 6; 7
claim: Authorship of scholarly articles was accepted, with citation indices on appeal supporting interest and reliance on the petitioner’s work.; pages: 8
claim: AAO found only two criteria met and dismissed, concluding sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing was not established.; pages: 8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.