AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR272009_05B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR272009_05B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO concluded the petitioner met only two criteria and aggregate evidence did not establish extraordinary ability. (p. 12).
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_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR272009_05B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 27, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A sciences petition; petitioner is an electrical/computer engineer in wireless communications/OFDMA. (pp. 2–3, 9–10) |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed. (pp. 2, 12) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Internal inconsistency: page 12 says only two criteria met although pages 6, 8, and 11 appear to find judging, contributions, authorship, and role established. Hold criterion count/summary until reconciled; page 12 aggregate conclusion rejects acclaim. (pp. 6, 8, 11–12) |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO concluded the petitioner met only two criteria and aggregate evidence did not establish extraordinary ability. (p. 12)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
HOLD internal criterion-count conflict: source findings on pp. 6, 8, 11 appear to establish more than two criteria, while p. 12 says only two. Do not publish an exact criteria count or derive a threshold lesson pending reconciliation.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If cleared for publication, use a source-linked, page-cited case summary that distinguishes issue, procedure, criterion-stage findings and final merits. Potential engineering comparison on OFDMA research, judging and project leadership, but unusable for a criterion-count aggregation until source inconsistency is resolved.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.