AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAY172005_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY172005_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Judging activity consisted of routine editorial review and added manuscripts after filing, not qualifying judging at filing; original contributions and scholarly authorship were met, but only two criteria were established. AAO found sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing not established.
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY172005_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 17, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; field claimed: chemistry / surface-science researcher. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Vermont Service Center denial. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | "not met" |
What the AAO decision addressed
Judging activity consisted of routine editorial review and added manuscripts after filing, not qualifying judging at filing; original contributions and scholarly authorship were met, but only two criteria were established. AAO found sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing not established.
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 | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
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
pp. 2–5; judging p. 3; contributions p. 4; authorship/final merits p. 5.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Research comparator for routine peer review versus qualifying judging and evidence for contributions/authorship; decision is dated and fact-specific. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 3 — Reviews judging and finds evidence insufficient.
PDF page 4 — Expert letters and field evidence establish contributions criterion.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.