AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAR212024_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR212024_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). AAO found judging and scholarly authorship established but published material and original contributions not established; leading/critical role was reserved because distinguished reputation was not shown. Fewer than three criteria and final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).
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 | MAR212024_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 21, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A appeal; associate professor in computing/technology-related research. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; director found only judging; AAO accepted scholarly authorship, rejected published material and original contributions, and reserved leading role. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not reached as separate Kazarian step because fewer than three criteria were established; AAO advised aggregate evidence did not show acclaim/top-of-field (p. 6). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found judging and scholarly authorship established but published material and original contributions not established; leading/critical role was reserved because distinguished reputation was not shown. Fewer than three criteria and final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).
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 met |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not reached |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Citations refer to physical PDF page numbers. Every page was visually inspected in source order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful case on academic authorship versus published material “about” the petitioner, citation comparisons and department reputation evidence. Potential individual source-cited page, clearly marking leading-role issue reserved rather than denied.
Editorial use note: Potential individual source-cited page, clearly marking leading-role issue reserved rather than denied.
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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.