AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY022012_03B2203: AAO found the petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and did not show research/contributions were…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY022012_03B2203: AAO found the petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and did not show research/contributions were of major significance. It acknowledged scholarly authorship meeting plain language, but publications/presentations and citation data were not enough on aggregate (pp. 14-23).
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 | MAY022012_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 2, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition in the sciences for a medical doctor specializing in nephrology/kidney transplantation; record included research and medical-imaging work (pp. 2, 4, 14-18). |
Procedural posture | Texas Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 24). |
Operative disposition | AAO found the petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and did not show research/contributions were of major significance. It acknowledged scholarly authorship meeting plain language, but publications/presentations and citation data were not enough on aggregate (pp. 14-23). |
Final-merits status | The decision addresses aggregate merits and finds the overall record inadequate; threshold count also failed (pp. 22-23). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found the petitioner failed the three-criterion threshold and did not show research/contributions were of major significance. It acknowledged scholarly authorship meeting plain language, but publications/presentations and citation data were not enough on aggregate (pp. 14-23).
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 |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | not met |
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No source identity, completeness, or integrity hold. Public copy redacts claimant identities; no identifying inference should be added.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful only as a case-specific example; quantify its citation analysis with exact page citations and avoid implying a universal citation threshold.
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
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.