AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAR192019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Only one criterion was met; comparable evidence did not cure the threshold shortfall, so the appeal was dismissed.
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: Printed decision identifies a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability proceeding.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR192019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 19, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability Form I-140 petition appeal; motion posture only where expressly identified. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from denial of Form I-140 EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision found fewer than three criteria; it did not perform a formal final-merits step. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only one criterion was met; comparable evidence did not cure the threshold shortfall, so the appeal was dismissed.
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 3 |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading/critical roles, and high salary; the Director found only leading/critical role met.; pages: 2; 3
claim: AAO affirmed the role finding for consulting work at a distinguished organization, but found consulting reports did not constitute judging and the client/business outcomes did not establish field-wide major significance; scholarly-article self-publishing did not qualify.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: Comparable evidence was not established because the regulatory criteria readily applied and the evidence was not shown comparable.; pages: 6
claim: Fewer than three criteria were established; AAO dismissed the appeal without formal final merits.; pages: 6; 7
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.