AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY022006_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found scholarly authorship met but found the other asserted evidence insufficient for the remaining criteria; fewer than three criteria were established.
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: The decision identifies an extraordinary-ability immigrant worker petition under INA § 203(b)(1)(A). (pp. 1–2). This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY022006_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 2, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability appeal decision. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The three-criterion threshold was not met; the decision closes under the legacy framework without a distinct final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found scholarly authorship met but found the other asserted evidence insufficient for the remaining criteria; fewer than three criteria were established.
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. 4 |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 7 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 7 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 8 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Award evidence based on fellowship, examination scores, or a patent did not establish a qualifying prize or award for excellence.; pages: 3
claim: Membership, published-material, and judging evidence did not establish the plain-language criteria.; pages: 4
claim: Letters and patent-pending work did not establish original contributions of major significance; the record lacked evidence of licensing, marketing, or broader field impact.; pages: 5; 6
claim: The decision accepted scholarly authorship but found evidence of only two? Please confirm: the AAO states the petitioner meets authorship but is not persuaded he meets at least two additional criteria; thus only authorship counted.; pages: 2; 7
claim: Leading role and high salary evidence were not established; the salary evidence was not field-comparable.; pages: 7; 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
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.