AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAY122021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed. Review source status, procedural posture and…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed AAO agreed three criteria were met—judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role—but held final merits not established. Original contributions were considered in totality but criterion not met.
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: Opening page identifies EB-1A classification and final page confirms disposition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY122021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 12, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly conducted a final-merits determination and found the record did not establish sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO agreed three criteria were met—judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role—but held final merits not established. Original contributions were considered in totality but criterion not met.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
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: AAO agreed that judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met the criteria; original contributions were not established.; pages: 3; 9
claim: At final merits, mentorship, conferences/publications, pandemic-era work, and letters did not establish field-wide sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing.; pages: 4; 10
claim: Appeal dismissed despite meeting three initial criteria.; pages: 11
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.