AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAY162017_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY162017_01B2203: dismissed. Initial three-criterion evidentiary threshold 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: EB-1A AAO appellate decision reviewed from complete source PDF; no publication or CMS changes made.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY162017_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 16, 2017 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO appellate decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal dismissed; initial evidentiary threshold not met. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | Not reached; fewer than three criteria were established. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Initial three-criterion evidentiary threshold 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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 4 |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Only leading/critical role was found met; judging was not established because ordinary hiring/promotion activities did not demonstrate qualifying judging.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Original contributions were not established as the petitioner’s own field-wide contributions rather than company technology or presentations; high salary was unsupported by consistent personal compensation and relevant comparative benchmarks.; pages: 4; 5; 6
claim: Because fewer than three criteria were met, the appeal was dismissed without formal Kazarian final-merits review.; pages: 6
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Complete source with clear criterion-specific findings; suitable as threshold-stage comparison, not a final-merits precedent.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual decision page and only narrow aggregation preserving date, field, posture, and threshold/final-merits distinctions.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Computing sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.