AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision MAY012012_01B2203: Membership: not met (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; projected future usefulness and general…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY012012_01B2203: Membership: not met (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; projected future usefulness and general statements did not show present major significance (pp. 5–7). Scholarly authorship: met (p. 8). Artistic display: not met; science conference presentations were not artistic exhibitions (p. 8). Leading/critical role: met for D.A.V. College (p. 8). High salary: not met; comparison was not like-for-like and concerned teaching rather than biotechnology research (p. 10). Appeal rejected as improperly filed because counsel did not submit an updated Form G-28 when requested. AAO alternatively concluded the appeal would fail on merits; only two of the required three criteria were found (authorship and leading/critical role). (pp. 2, 8, 11–12).
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 | MAY012012_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 1, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | Petitioner seeking EB-1A in biotechnology; appeal rejected for filing defect, with an alternative merits analysis. |
Procedural posture | Petitioner seeking EB-1A in biotechnology; appeal rejected for filing defect, with an alternative merits analysis. Membership: not met (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; projected future usefulness and general statements did not show present major significance (pp. 5–7). Scholarly authorship: met (p. 8). Artistic display: not met; science conference presentations were not artistic exhibitions (p. 8). Leading/critical role: met for D.A.V. College (p. 8). High salary: not met; comparison was not like-for-like and concerned teaching rather than biotechnology research (p. 10). |
Operative disposition | Membership: not met (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; projected future usefulness and general statements did not show present major significance (pp. 5–7). Scholarly authorship: met (p. 8). Artistic display: not met; science conference presentations were not artistic exhibitions (p. 8). Leading/critical role: met for D.A.V. College (p. 8). High salary: not met; comparison was not like-for-like and concerned teaching rather than biotechnology research (p. 10). |
Final-merits status | No formal final-merits determination; appeal rejected on filing defect, with alternative conclusion that merits fail at initial evidence threshold. (pp. 11–12) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal rejected as improperly filed because counsel did not submit an updated Form G-28 when requested. AAO alternatively concluded the appeal would fail on merits; only two of the required three criteria were found (authorship and leading/critical role). (pp. 2, 8, 11–12)
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Prominent procedural hold: disposition is rejection for filing defect; merits analysis is alternative. Non-precedent source.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If published, use a dated case-specific answer summary, procedural posture, criterion states supported by cited source pages, and direct USCIS PDF link. Do not present as precedent or imply the outcome applies generally. Useful narrowly for biotechnology researcher evidence, publication versus conference display, and procedural rejection under Form G-28 requirement. Keep rejection distinct from a merits dismissal.
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
Membership research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.