AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR272019_02B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR272019_02B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). AAO withdrew the awards finding because evidence did not establish qualifying national/international recognition; original contributions were not shown major in significance despite citations and letters. Peer review/authorship were accepted, leaving fewer than three criteria; final merits not reached (pp. 2–6).
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR272019_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 27, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences; petitioner is an infectious-disease researcher (p. 1). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; Director had found awards, judging and authorship; AAO reviewed awards and original-contribution claims (pp. 1–4). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO withdrew the awards finding because evidence did not establish qualifying national/international recognition; original contributions were not shown major in significance despite citations and letters. Peer review/authorship were accepted, leaving fewer than three criteria; 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 met |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
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 coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Masked awards, institutions and disease details; cited source contains apparent OCR date typo in citation, so use cover date March 27, 2019."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Matter of M-A-R- cover; infectious-disease researcher.; p2: Appeal framework; findings and claimed criteria.; p3: Award analysis; claimed awards not established as qualifying; evidence details.; p4: Original-contribution legal standard and citation/letter arguments.; p5: Citations and letters do not show major field significance; threshold conclusion.; p6: Appeal dismissed.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful researcher example for the difference between publishing/citations and evidence of major significance; also shows a prior Director finding can be withdrawn on appeal. Eligible for negative, source-cited summary with exact split between judging/authorship met and award/contribution claims not met.
Editorial use note: Eligible for negative, source-cited summary with exact split between judging/authorship met and award/contribution claims not met.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Matter of M-A-R- cover; infectious-disease researcher.
PDF page 2 — Appeal framework; findings and claimed criteria.
PDF page 3 — Award analysis; claimed awards not established as qualifying; evidence details.
PDF page 4 — Original-contribution legal standard and citation/letter arguments.
PDF page 5 — Citations and letters do not show major field significance; threshold conclusion.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.