AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAR192020_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR192020_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Two criteria met, role and high salary failed, leaving fewer than three. Aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR192020_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 19, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A appeal / non-precedent AAO decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; AAO de novo review dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Not reached_with_aggregate_unfavorable_review |
What the AAO decision addressed
Two criteria met, role and high salary failed, leaving fewer than three. Aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.
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 | met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"No completeness hold; one company product-line name redacted. Source scan is complete and readable."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Peer review of symposium papers met judging criterion; poster in World Congress proceedings established scholarly publication criterion.; pages: 2
claim: Leading/critical role in large employer not established: team leadership and product work lacked evidence of leadership for overall 22,000+ employee company or criticality to overall success.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Salary above median wages but insufficiently shown to be high relative to peers in comparable position/geography.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Only two criteria established; aggregate acclaim/top-field evidence inadequate; final merits not reached.; pages: 5
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: individual_case_comparison_eligible
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Matter/date and industrial automation engineer; appeal dismissed.
PDF page 2 — Judging and scholarly-article criteria met; leading/critical role analyzed.
PDF page 3 — Employer reference letters and role/team/product evidence.
PDF page 4 — Company scale, role criticality, salary evidence and comparators.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Computing sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.