AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAR112019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Only two criteria (high salary and judging) were established; the required three criteria were not met.
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 decision on an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR112019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 11, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal of denial of an EB-1A Form I-140; nonprecedent Matter of N-F-N-C-. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO states it need not provide the Kazarian final-merits determination because the initial criteria threshold was not met; it adds a summary aggregate observation. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only two criteria (high salary and judging) were established; the required three criteria were not met.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 6 |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | met — p. 2 |
Commercial success in the performing arts |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner relied on high salary, published material, judging, original contributions, artistic display, leading/critical role and commercial-success evidence.; evidence_pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: The AAO found high salary and judging met, but found published material, original contributions, artistic display, leading/critical role and commercial-success evidence insufficient.; evidence_pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: The AAO found fewer than three criteria met, so did not conduct the formal final-merits stage, while noting the aggregate evidence also did not establish acclaim; appeal dismissed.; evidence_pages: 9; 10
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person 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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.