AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision MAY102006_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO accepted original contributions and scholarly authorship, but found membership, judging, and artistic-display claims insufficient. Only two criteria were satisfied; appeal dismissed.
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 source is a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY102006_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 10, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of California Service Center denial of Form I-140; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The threshold of three criteria was not reached; the decision discusses overall acclaim but expressly does not provide a separate formal final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO accepted original contributions and scholarly authorship, but found membership, judging, and artistic-display claims insufficient. Only two criteria were satisfied; appeal dismissed.
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 — p. 3 |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 8 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 8 |
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-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner sought extraordinary-ability classification as a materials science and engineering researcher; he held a Ph.D. and worked as a postgraduate researcher at UC Davis at filing.; pages: 2
claim: Evidence described spray-rolling/free-fall gas atomization and nanometric oxide dispersion work; AAO found contributions significant in materials science and engineering based on international expert recognition.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: Materials, Metals and Materials Society membership lacked bylaws/admission requirements; manuscript reviewing was routine and some review requests occurred after filing.; pages: 3; 4
claim: AAO concurred that scholarly authorship was met, but conference presentations did not meet the visual-art display criterion; fewer than three criteria were established.; pages: 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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.