AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAY182021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY182021_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). AAO accepted judging, scholarly authorship, and original contributions, reaching three criteria. It then found final-merits evidence insufficient, discussing limited citation/reputation evidence, routine judging, patent/publication impact, and weak or questionable letter provenance (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 | MAY182021_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 18, 2021 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition concerning a chemical engineer. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial; AAO dismissed after de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). |
Final-merits status | Explicit final-merits determination, adverse: citations, judging, publications/patent evidence, recognition, and support letters did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field status (pp. 3–7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO accepted judging, scholarly authorship, and original contributions, reaching three criteria. It then found final-merits evidence insufficient, discussing limited citation/reputation evidence, routine judging, patent/publication impact, and weak or questionable letter provenance (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 coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | abandoned |
Judging the work of others | 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. 2–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong comparator on criterion-stage acceptance followed by adverse final merits and on how evidence of contributions/patents was evaluated. Characterize concerns about letter provenance exactly as AAO did. Publish as an individual summary and qualified final-merits comparator.
Editorial use note: Publish as an individual summary and qualified final-merits 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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Computing sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.