AAO research
EB-1A three-criterion threshold — AAO decision MAR022021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR022021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO agreed judging and scholarly authorship criteria were met, but found original contributions of major significance not established. Publication/citation counts lacked field comparisons/context; fewer than three criteria, so no top-of-field eligibility. (pp. 1–7).
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 | MAR022021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 2, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Biomedical research; research assistant professor developing cell models and tissue-isolation methods |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed after de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | No separate final-merits determination because only two criteria were established; overall acclaim/top-of-field status was not shown. (pp. 6–7) |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO agreed judging and scholarly authorship criteria were met, but found original contributions of major significance not established. Publication/citation counts lacked field comparisons/context; fewer than three criteria, so no top-of-field eligibility. (pp. 1–7)
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — 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-cited findings recorded in review
(p. 2)
(pp. 3–6)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong research comparator on separating original work and publication/citation totals from demonstrated major significance; require field-specific comparison and evidence of independent uptake. Individual page; clearly state two criteria met, contribution criterion not met, formal final merits not reached.
Editorial use note: Individual page; clearly state two criteria met, contribution criterion not met, formal final merits not reached.
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
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Final Merits research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.