AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR282006_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO found no three qualifying criteria and concluded sustained acclaim/top-of-field evidence insufficient.
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: Cover identifies an extraordinary-ability Form I-140 under INA 203(b)(1)(A).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAR282006_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2006-03-28 (filename ID date; cover date line scan is degraded) |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in arts |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal of denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision concludes the initial threshold of three criteria is unmet; its closing acclaim discussion is not a formal Kazarian final-merits analysis. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found no three qualifying criteria and concluded sustained acclaim/top-of-field evidence insufficient.
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 — p. 3 |
Membership | Not met — p. 3 |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 7 |
Artistic display or showcases | |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was an Iranian visual artist, instructor, and inventor; claims included art awards, association membership, publications, judging, patented easel inventions, and exhibitions.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: AAO rejected award, membership, media, judging, contributions, and scholarly-authorship evidence for lack of national recognition, qualifying requirements, documentation, impact, or qualifying publications.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: A U.S. patent established originality of the easel device but did not show major significance or widespread field impact.; pages: 6
claim: Local exhibition and sales materials did not establish nationally reputed venues or display as a privilege for top artists.; pages: 7; 8
claim: AAO concluded fewer than three criteria and no sustained acclaim; appeal dismissed.; pages: 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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Waiv research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.