AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision MAR012006_01B2203: Appeal arguments

AAO EB-1A decision MAR012006_01B2203: Appeal arguments

EB-1A appeal arguments — AAO decision MAR012006_01B2203: Appeal dismissed for failure to identify specific error. Review source status, procedural posture…

Decision summary: AAO decision MAR012006_01B2203: Appeal dismissed for failure to identify specific error. Petitioner did not address the denial reasons or provide additional evidence; this is a procedural dismissal.

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.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID

MAR012006_01B2203

Decision date as printed

March 1, 2006

Classification / field stated in source

EB-1A immigrant petition in the arts, INA §203(b)(1)(A)

Procedural posture

Self-represented appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific error

Operative disposition

Appeal dismissed for failure to identify specific error.

Final-merits status

Not reached

What the AAO decision addressed

Petitioner did not address the denial reasons or provide additional evidence; this is a procedural dismissal.

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 reached — source PDF

Membership

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Published material about the person

Not reached — source PDF

Judging the work of others

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Original contributions of major significance

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Scholarly authorship

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Artistic display or showcases

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Leading or critical role

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

High salary or remuneration

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Commercial success in the performing arts

Not reached
AAO did not re-review criterion evidence in this summary dismissal; this source only gives a general prior Director conclusion, not category outcomes. — source PDF

Source holds and limits

["Page 2 says “Counsel here” although page 1 marks the petitioner self-represented; do not infer a representative’s identity.", "The Director’s prior criteria decision is not included here; the AAO source does not give which criteria were met or not met."]

Specific caveats recorded by the reviewer

  • Page 2 says “Counsel here” although page 1 marks the petitioner self-represented; do not infer a representative’s identity.

  • The Director’s prior criteria decision is not included here; the AAO source does not give which criteria were met or not met.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

  • claim: First page identifies EAC 03 244 52537 and prints date March 1, 2006.; pages: 1

  • claim: Petition is for extraordinary ability in the arts under INA §203(b)(1)(A).; pages: 1; 2

  • claim: Director denied the petition; AAO states a five-page decision below had addressed regulatory criteria and found sustained acclaim not established.; pages: 2

  • claim: On appeal, petitioner reiterated belief in eligibility and requested reconsideration but did not identify specific error or provide additional evidence.; pages: 2

  • claim: AAO dismissed under 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(1)(v).; pages: 2

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: {'fit': 'narrow procedural explainer', 'reason': 'Can illustrate summary dismissal when an appeal does not identify a specific legal/factual error; not usable for substantive evidence lessons.'}

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

  • Membership 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

  • Performance sector research

  • Summary Dismissal research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for MAR012006_01B2203