AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY092006_02B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY092006_02B2203: dismissed. The AAO found the claimed awards, published material, judging, and leading/critical role did not establish the required criteria; the petitioner’s work and role evidence did not show sustained acclaim.
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: Complete AAO decision involving an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition or motion.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY092006_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2006-05-09 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO EB-1A appellate decision or motion proceeding |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial of a Form I-140 EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO states the initial evidentiary threshold was not met and final merits was not required. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the claimed awards, published material, judging, and leading/critical role did not establish the required criteria; the petitioner’s work and role evidence did not show sustained acclaim.
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 | |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not considered — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner’s modeling awards and contests were not shown to be qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prizes. (pp. 3–4); pages: 3; 4
claim: The cited fashion and newspaper coverage did not meet the published-material requirements, including coverage about the petitioner and necessary translations. (pp. 4–5); pages: 4; 5
claim: The petitioner did not establish judging or a leading/critical role for a distinguished organization; modeling bookings and Advisory Board status did not suffice on this record. (pp. 5–7); pages: 5; 7
claim: The appeal was dismissed; final merits was not reached after the initial-evidence threshold failed. (p. 7); pages: 7
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
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Translat research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.