AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision MAR292007_01B2203: Awards

EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAR292007_01B2203: Director’s denial withdrawn; petition remanded for further action and a new decision, with an adverse new…

Decision summary: The AAO director’s denial withdrawn; petition Remanded for further action and a new decision, with an adverse new decision to be certified to AAO (pp. 7–8). This is not a final approval or final denial. AAO identified deficiencies in award recognition, association admission rules, major-media status of articles, field-wide impact, role/reputation evidence and national salary comparisons. It also found the director failed to address evidence and applied a deficient RFE process; remand was ordered for a complete new adjudication (pp. 4–7).

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	MAR292007_01B2203
Decision date as printed	March 29, 2007
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A arts/athletics appeal; petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as a professional Dance Sport competitor and dance instructor.
Procedural posture	Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial. AAO found the RFE improperly singled out criteria, the denial contained legal errors and ignored evidence, and the matter required a new RFE and decision (pp. 2–5).
Operative disposition	Director’s denial withdrawn; petition Remanded for further action and a new decision, with an adverse new decision to be certified to AAO (pp. 7–8). This is not a final approval or final denial.
Final-merits status	No separate final-merits determination: the AAO said the record did not establish top-of-field acclaim, but withdrew the director decision and Remanded for new evidence and adjudication (pp. 6–8).

What the AAO decision addressed

AAO identified deficiencies in award recognition, association admission rules, major-media status of articles, field-wide impact, role/reputation evidence and national salary comparisons. It also found the director failed to address evidence and applied a deficient RFE process; remand was ordered for a complete new adjudication (pp. 4–7).

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 Awards were not shown to have national or international recognition; AAO directed the director to request media coverage or comparable evidence of significance (p. 5). — source PDF
Membership	not met No official bylaws/admission requirements showed outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts (p. 5). — source PDF
Published material about the person	not met Submitted material was not shown to be primarily about petitioner in major media; circulation evidence was missing (p. 5). — source PDF
Judging the work of others	unclear Counsel asserted the criterion, but AAO faulted the director for not addressing the evidence; it did not finally adjudicate this category before remand (pp. 4–5). — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	not met Evidence did not establish contributions that demonstrably influenced dance professionals or changed the field (p. 5). — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not coded — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	not met AAO stated this criterion is more appropriate for visual artists than a dancer (p. 5). — source PDF
Leading or critical role	not met The director was directed to assess the nature of the role and whether the organization had a distinguished reputation; AAO did not find the showing sufficient on the appeal record (p. 6). — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	not met Biweekly pay and Virginia-only prevailing-wage data did not establish nationally high remuneration in dance (p. 6). — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not coded — source PDF

Source-cited findings recorded in review

Citations are physical PDF page numbers. Every physical page was visually inspected in page order.

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Useful procedural-history example about a deficient RFE/denial and the limits of evidence for regional dance awards, media, contributions and salary. Do not describe the remand as a final denial or approval. If published, present only as a historical procedural remand, include the remand posture prominently, and avoid implying the petition’s ultimate outcome is known. No CMS edits or publication were made.

Editorial use note: If published, present only as a historical procedural remand, include the remand posture prominently, and avoid implying the petition’s ultimate outcome is known. No CMS edits or publication were made.

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
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Athletics sector research
Performance sector research
Teaching sector research
Remand research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for MAR292007_01B2203