AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR192018_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR192018_01B2203: dismissed. Appeal dismissed; aggregate record focused largely on one project and did not show sustained acclaim.
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: EB-1A AAO appellate or motion decision; reviewed for source-grounded findings and procedural posture.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR192018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 19, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | No modern formal final-merits determination after AAO withdrew director’s three criterion findings; aggregate acclaim discussion unfavorable. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed; aggregate record focused largely on one project and did not show sustained acclaim.
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 | |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
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 coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Awards to project/company and architect were not petitioner’s awards.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Media primarily covered the building/project, not petitioner; interviews lacked proof of qualifying major media.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Letters praised restoration but did not show petitioner’s individual field-wide impact.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Project role was shown but distinguished reputation of employer/establishment was not.; pages: 5
claim: Appeal dismissed; aggregate record focused largely on one project and did not show sustained acclaim.; pages: 5; 6
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Narrow comparison for separating project/company achievements from personal awards, media coverage, contributions, and organizational reputation.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual page; aggregate only with procedural and date caveats preserved.
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
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.