AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision MAY172021_02B2203: Membership

EB-1A membership — AAO decision MAY172021_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; Director’s dismissal of motions left in place (pp. 1, 7). Review source status…

Decision summary: AAO decision MAY172021_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; Director’s dismissal of motions left in place (pp. 1, 7). Underlying Director had found the initial criteria met for judging, original contributions and scholarly authorship, but denied at final merits. AAO concluded the motion evidence and arguments did not show error in the motion dismissal; new evidence could not establish filing-date eligibility on reconsideration, and motion-to-reopen arguments did not overcome the stated final-merits grounds (pp. 2–7).

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	MAY172021_02B2203
Decision date as printed	May 17, 2021
Classification / field stated in source	Cybersecurity research and analysis firm petitioner; beneficiary was an applications engineer/chief software architect and later chief scientist.
Procedural posture	Appeal from dismissal of combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The underlying March 2020 petition denial and its adverse final-merits analysis were not directly before AAO; AAO reviewed whether the Director erred in dismissing the motions.
Operative disposition	Appeal dismissed; Director’s dismissal of motions left in place (pp. 1, 7).
Final-merits status	Underlying Director made an adverse final-merits determination after three initial criteria. This AAO decision did not conduct a new merits adjudication; it reviewed the dismissal of the motions and held the petitioner had not shown error (pp. 2–7).

What the AAO decision addressed

Underlying Director had found the initial criteria met for judging, original contributions and scholarly authorship, but denied at final merits. AAO concluded the motion evidence and arguments did not show error in the motion dismissal; new evidence could not establish filing-date eligibility on reconsideration, and motion-to-reopen arguments did not overcome the stated final-merits grounds (pp. 2–7).

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 met Underlying Director found IEEE/Sigma Xi evidence did not establish acclaim; Sigma Xi membership occurred after filing and did not overcome the motion decision (pp. 3–4). — source PDF
Published material about the person	Not coded — source PDF
Judging the work of others	met Underlying March 2020 decision accepted the criterion, while finding the panel participation limited and not shown to result from acclaim; AAO reviewed this only in the motion context (pp. 3–4). — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	met Underlying March 2020 decision accepted this initial criterion; AAO noted the motion did not overcome the adverse final-merits conclusion (p. 3). — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	met Underlying March 2020 decision accepted technical authorship criterion; AAO found existence of articles/confidential reports did not establish sustained acclaim (pp. 4–5). — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not coded — source PDF
Leading or critical role	not met Letters describing client services and the company did not establish distinguished reputation or beneficiary’s individual acclaim; AAO found no error in motion dismissal (pp. 5–6). — 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. 2–7

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Useful only as a procedural motion-to-reopen/reconsider example, with the underlying petition’s three initial criteria and adverse Director final-merits finding clearly separated from AAO’s motion review. Do not present this as a fresh AAO merits decision. Procedural case summary; appropriate for motion-practice content, not as a standalone outcome comparator.

Editorial use note: Procedural case summary; appropriate for motion-practice content, not as a standalone outcome comparator.

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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Other Named Professions sector research
Final Merits research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for MAY172021_02B2203