AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR162015_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO states the threshold was not met, says a formal type of final-merits determination is unnecessary, but expressly reviews the evidence in aggregate and finds sustained acclaim/expertise not established.
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: Physical source is an AAO/SCOPS decision concerning EB-1A classification and appeal or related merits review.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR162015_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 16, 2015 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability Form I-140 |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO appeal from denial of an EB-1A Form I-140; appeal dismissed; aggregate merits discussion follows threshold failure. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Page 13 says a formal type is not required because the threshold fails but states aggregate review supports finding sustained acclaim/expertise not established; preserve as unfavorable aggregate final-merits review with caveat. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO states the threshold was not met, says a formal type of final-merits determination is unnecessary, but expressly reviews the evidence in aggregate and finds sustained acclaim/expertise not established.
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 | |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner is an academic researcher in engineering; the decision reviews awards, membership, published work, judging, contributions, authorship, leadership and remuneration.; evidence_pages: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12
claim: AAO concludes the initial three-criterion threshold is not met but states that aggregate evidence supports a finding against sustained acclaim and expertise.; evidence_pages: 13
claim: The appeal is dismissed.; evidence_pages: 13; 14
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
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.