AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision JUN292006_04B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn and matter remanded for a new decision (pp. 2, 6); no AAO merits approval.…
Decision summary: The AAO director’s decision withdrawn and matter Remanded for a new decision (pp. 2, 6); no AAO merits approval. AAO held that the Director failed to specifically address claimed award, membership, original-contribution and scholarly-authorship criteria or explain why evidence was inadequate. The decision was too vague to allow meaningful appellate rebuttal; remand required proper criterion-by-criterion consideration (pp. 4-6).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | JUN292006_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | June 29, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; source decision does not clearly state the petitioner’s specific field in the visible identifying matter section (pp. 1-2). |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial; Director acknowledged at least three criteria but gave a conclusory explanation (pp. 2, 4-5). |
Operative disposition | Director’s decision withdrawn and matter Remanded for a new decision (pp. 2, 6); no AAO merits approval. |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO held that the Director failed to specifically address claimed award, membership, original-contribution and scholarly-authorship criteria or explain why evidence was inadequate. The decision was too vague to allow meaningful appellate rebuttal; remand required proper criterion-by-criterion consideration (pp. 4-6).
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 | unclear |
Membership | unclear |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | unclear |
Scholarly authorship | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
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
"Field/specific beneficiary identity unclear from source; classify broadly and do not invent occupation."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Legacy cover identifying EB-1A petition and Nebraska Service Center.; p2: Appeal posture and explicit withdrawal/remand order; eligibility framework.; p3: Applicable criterion text and record discussion.; p4: Director’s conclusory denial language; acknowledgment that at least three criteria were met, without adequate explanation.; p5: AAO identifies claimed award, membership, original contributions, authorship and failure to analyze them.; p6: Concludes decision too vague for meaningful rebuttal; remands for new decision addressing criteria.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong process-focused example: AAO requires reasoned, criterion-specific agency adjudication and meaningful notice, independent of ultimate eligibility. Eligible only as a procedural remand example. Do not present as approval or as resolving any substantive criterion.
Editorial use note: Eligible only as a procedural remand example. Do not present as approval or as resolving any substantive criterion.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Legacy cover identifying EB-1A petition and Nebraska Service Center.
PDF page 2 — Appeal posture and explicit withdrawal/remand order; eligibility framework.
PDF page 3 — Applicable criterion text and record discussion.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.