AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAR292021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAR292021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. after three initial criteria were established, followed by an adverse formal final-merits determination. AAO found insufficient sustained acclaim and top-of-field evidence despite significant robotics research and startup leadership. (pp. 2–8).
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 | MAR292021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | March 29, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences/technology; robotics researcher and robotics-company CEO |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; AAO de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination reached; adverse. AAO found the publication, citation, media, award, company and research record did not establish sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing as of filing. (pp. 4–8) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed after three initial criteria were established, followed by an adverse formal final-merits determination. AAO found insufficient sustained acclaim and top-of-field evidence despite significant robotics research and startup leadership. (pp. 2–8)
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | waived |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
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 |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: High-value cited AEO case for “three criteria met, petition still denied”: explain initial evidence versus final merits for robotics researchers and founders.
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
Judging the work of others research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.