AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY142021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Only artistic display was established among the decided criteria; leading role was reserved and the threshold was 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: Printed decision identifies an EB-1A extraordinary-ability proceeding.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY142021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 14, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO decision; EB-1A unless marked out of scope below. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO says it need not provide the formal Kazarian final-merits determination because fewer than three criteria were established; aggregate comments are not a formal step. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only artistic display was established among the decided criteria; leading role was reserved and the threshold was 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 | |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | met — p. 6 |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — p. 7 |
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: AAO found the awards evidence insufficient to show nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence; the presented competition and loaned-instrument record did not establish qualifying recognition.; pages: 2; 3; 4
claim: Published-material evidence was deficient as to authorship, aboutness, and major-media status; judging evidence about artistic direction/auditions did not establish qualifying judging of others’ work.; pages: 4; 5; 6
claim: AAO found the artistic-display criterion met, reserved the leading/critical-role claim, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were established.; pages: 6; 7
claim: AAO stated formal final merits was unnecessary, while adding an aggregate observation that the record did not support required acclaim.; 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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.