AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision MAY172024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY172024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO accepts judging, scholarly authorship and leading/critical role as three criteria, then conducts a formal final-merits determination and finds sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing unproven.
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: Physical source concerns an EB-1A extraordinary-ability Form I-140 petition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY172024_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 17, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO de novo appeal from Texas Service Center denial of EB-1A Form I-140; appeal dismissed after formal final-merits determination. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO accepts judging, scholarly authorship and leading/critical role as three criteria, then conducts a formal final-merits determination and finds sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing unproven. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO accepts judging, scholarly authorship and leading/critical role as three criteria, then conducts a formal final-merits determination and finds sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing unproven.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner is a computer scientist with graduate study in electrical engineering/computer science and work in AI/ML and data science.; evidence_pages: 1; 2; 3; 4
claim: AAO finds judging, scholarly authorship and a leading/critical role met; membership, published material and original contributions are not established.; evidence_pages: 2; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: The formal final-merits review finds the record does not show sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing; appeal dismissed.; evidence_pages: 8; 9
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Computing sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.