AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAR222012_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Published material about the petitioner and his work met one criterion. AAO accepted the petitioner’s creation of MSFF as an original contribution in substance, but interpreted the regulation’s plural “contributions” to require more than one; a leading role for only one organization did not satisfy the plural “organizations or establishments”; salary evidence lacked actual-earnings and adequate comparative proof. Threshold failed.
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: The source is an AAO EB-1A appeal/remand decision with case-specific procedural and evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR222012_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 22, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal; dismissed after fewer than three criteria; no formal final-merits determination, with aggregate observations. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The petitioner failed the initial criterion count. AAO made an aggregate negative review but expressly stated that the formal final-merits analysis would follow only if the initial threshold were met. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Published material about the petitioner and his work met one criterion. AAO accepted the petitioner’s creation of MSFF as an original contribution in substance, but interpreted the regulation’s plural “contributions” to require more than one; a leading role for only one organization did not satisfy the plural “organizations or establishments”; salary evidence lacked actual-earnings and adequate comparative proof. Threshold failed.
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 | met — p. 4 |
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 | Not met — p. 5 |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in arts and created/founded a short-film festival (MSFF); the petition was filed in November 2009.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Published material in newspapers including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times and trade publication Indiewire met the published-material criterion.; pages: 4
claim: Letters from cultural, film-industry, and public officials and extensive U.S. media coverage supported that MSFF creation was an original contribution of major significance; AAO nevertheless found only one contribution and read the criterion’s plural to require more than one.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Evidence showed a leading role at MSFF and distinguished reputation, but AAO interpreted “organizations or establishments” in the plural, so one organization did not satisfy that criterion.; pages: 5
claim: A 2008 employment agreement set $100,000 annual salary, but actual earnings were undocumented; comparison relied on two festivals and was not a reliable sample of U.S. festival executive directors.; pages: 5; 6
claim: AAO found fewer than three criteria; its aggregate review did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status, but it did not issue formal final merits.; pages: 7; 8
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
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.