AAO research
EB-1A scholarly authorship — AAO decision MAR192020_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR192020_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. AAO found the petitioner had not met at least three criteria and dismissed. It found no qualifying membership, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly authorship, or leading/critical role on this record; no full final-merits determination was required, though AAO gave an adverse aggregate assessment (pp. 3–7).
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: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR192020_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 19, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Attorney specializing in international tax law; senior standing counsel representing the Government of India in High Court litigation. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial of Form I-140. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. |
Final-merits status | Not reached as a separate Kazarian final-merits stage; AAO states initial threshold was not met and provides an adverse aggregate observation (pp. 6–7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found the petitioner had not met at least three criteria and dismissed. It found no qualifying membership, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly authorship, or leading/critical role on this record; no full final-merits determination was required, though AAO gave an adverse aggregate assessment (pp. 3–7).
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 met — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful legal-professional comparator for court opinions versus media about the attorney, senior government counsel and association membership, mentoring versus formal judging, and proof of legal impact. Individual case page with close attribution and a clear statement that legal decisions themselves were not published material about counsel.
Editorial use note: Individual case page with close attribution and a clear statement that legal decisions themselves were not published material about counsel.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Public Service sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.