AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR132007_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Youth award did not establish current field-wide excellence; membership was hypothetical; press was old, lacked author/circulation and was not primarily about petitioner; letters praising style did not establish field-wide major contribution; exhibition venues/reputation and relative salary evidence were insufficient.
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 | MAR132007_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 13, 2007 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | Legacy EB-1A appeal; dismissed after fewer than three criteria; aggregate acclaim finding without separate modern final-merits stage. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy decision; AAO made an aggregate finding that sustained national/international acclaim and top-of-field status were not shown, without a separate modern final-merits stage. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Youth award did not establish current field-wide excellence; membership was hypothetical; press was old, lacked author/circulation and was not primarily about petitioner; letters praising style did not establish field-wide major contribution; exhibition venues/reputation and relative salary evidence were insufficient.
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 — p. 3 |
Membership | Not met — p. 3 |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 7 |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 7 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petition filed August 11, 2005; petitioner had lived in the United States since August 2000 and sought classification as an artist.; pages: 2; 3
claim: “Most Promising Artist 1982” was limited to four youths and did not establish sustained acclaim among experienced artists; no qualifying recent award was shown.; pages: 3
claim: The petitioner said she might have joined UGAASAL but provided no evidence of actual membership.; pages: 3
claim: Articles from 1982–1991 lacked authors, major-media circulation, or primary focus on petitioner; later U.S. coverage was not established.; pages: 4
claim: Support letters described a distinctive synthesis of Japanese and Latin American traditions but did not supply independent, extensive evidence that her work influenced the field; original contributions not met.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: Gallery/museum displays were not shown to be at exclusive venues of distinguished reputation or to feature her work in a way reserved for top artists.; pages: 7
claim: Gallery price statements lacked receipts/tax records and no comparison showed high remuneration relative to other artists.; pages: 7
claim: AAO concluded fewer than three criteria and no sustained national/international acclaim at the very top; appeal dismissed.; pages: 7; 8
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Artistic display or showcases research
High salary or remuneration research
Performance sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.