AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision MAY142012_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 17). Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY142012_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 17). AAO found some evidence met plain-language criteria, including scholarly authorship, but the overall record did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. AAO found the claimed awards, membership, judging, and salary evidence insufficient in the discussed sections (pp. 5-14, 16).
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 | MAY142012_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 14, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A sciences petition; female petitioner, described as a researcher (pp. 2, 11-16). |
Procedural posture | Texas Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 17). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 17). |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination conducted and adverse; individual qualifying evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing (pp. 12-16). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found some evidence met plain-language criteria, including scholarly authorship, but the overall record did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. AAO found the claimed awards, membership, judging, and salary evidence insufficient in the discussed sections (pp. 5-14, 16).
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 | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No source identity/completeness hold. Privacy redactions; specialty not confirmed and criteria not fully enumerated here.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Case-linked explainer can clarify the two-step analysis and how this AAO weighed researcher evidence; state that authorship met threshold while overall merits failed.
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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.