AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAR042019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR042019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO accepted judging and scholarly articles, but found citations, percentile rankings, letters, research summaries, and speculative future impact did not establish original contributions of major significance. Threshold failed; formal final merits not reached.
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 an AAO EB-1A appeal/remand decision with case-specific procedural and evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR042019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 4, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal following revocation of an initially approved petition; dismissed after two criteria met and original-contribution criterion not met. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The initial three-criterion threshold failed; AAO expressly did not provide a formal final-merits determination, while making aggregate no-acclaim observations. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO accepted judging and scholarly articles, but found citations, percentile rankings, letters, research summaries, and speculative future impact did not establish original contributions of major significance. Threshold failed; formal final merits not reached.
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 — p. 3 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 3 |
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: Director initially approved then revoked the petition; petitioner was a staff scientist in pathology/immunology and claimed extraordinary ability in autophagy science.; pages: 1; 2; 3
claim: AAO agreed peer-review service and scholarly authorship met two criteria.; pages: 3
claim: Google Scholar showed 996 citations, including 223 and 207 for two articles; petitioner did not show the individual articles’ citations reflected major field impact.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Top-15–20% citation rankings versus baseline rates did not automatically establish major significance; AAO said a comparison with similarly highly cited, recognized papers and corroboration would be more probative.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Citing papers and journal coverage did not distinguish her work as unusually important; some sources described possible future usefulness.; pages: 5
claim: Letters praised novelty but did not explain unusual influence or high impact on the overall field; AAO found original contributions not met.; pages: 6
claim: Only two criteria were met; formal final merits was not necessary, and the appeal was dismissed.; pages: 6; 7
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Revocation research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.