AAO research
EB-1A leading or critical role — AAO decision MAR072005_08B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR072005_08B2203: Appeal dismissed. and revocation upheld. Award, published material, major contributions, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical-role evidence did not establish eligibility; much of the cited work was old, coauthored, or not shown to have sustained field impact. (pp. 2–9).
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 | MAR072005_08B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 7, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences/engineering; senior software engineer working in robotics/computer vision and telecommunications switching systems |
Procedural posture | Appeal from revocation of previously approved I-140; AAO considered statutory revocation arguments and EB-1A evidence. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | No separate Kazarian final-merits determination; the decision’s concluding overall review found talent but no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. (p. 9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed and revocation upheld. Award, published material, major contributions, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical-role evidence did not establish eligibility; much of the cited work was old, coauthored, or not shown to have sustained field impact. (pp. 2–9)
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 — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
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 — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Build a cited explainer on why technical usefulness, a prominent workshop, and senior engineering roles did not independently establish sustained acclaim; preserve this as an older revocation posture.
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
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Revocation research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.