AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR052010_04B2203: AAO dismissed. (pp. 1–2, 12). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR052010_04B2203: AAO dismissed. (pp. 1–2, 12). The evidence did not establish the claimed awards, membership, published material, contributions, scholarly authorship, or high remuneration; AAO found no qualifying three-criterion basis. (pp. 3–12).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR052010_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 5, 2010 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A science petition; petitioner was a physician/nephrologist with research and proposed dialysis-device work. (pp. 1–2, 6–8) |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; AAO dismissed. (pp. 1–2, 12) |
Operative disposition | AAO dismissed. (pp. 1–2, 12) |
Final-merits status | AAO assessed the evidence in the aggregate and concluded it did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. (p. 12) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The evidence did not establish the claimed awards, membership, published material, contributions, scholarly authorship, or high remuneration; AAO found no qualifying three-criterion basis. (pp. 3–12)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No identity/completeness hold. Do not describe the proposed dialysis-device concept as a validated or implemented medical technology.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If editorially cleared, create a source-linked summary that accurately names the procedural posture and order, distinguishes each criterion finding from any final-merits review, and cites the physical PDF pages. Narrow nephrology comparison for early-stage invention claims, translation/publication evidence, and field-impact documentation.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Translat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.