AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAY192006_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY192006_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Original contributions and scholarly authorship were met. Published material and judging were not met; leading/critical role was not established. Legacy aggregate conclusion found acclaim/top-of-field evidence insufficient (pp. 3–7).
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 | MAY192006_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 19, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition for a research scientist in high-energy physics, involved in the DZero experiment and top-quark discovery. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; legacy AAO review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). |
Final-merits status | Legacy aggregate merits finding adverse; not framed as a separate modern Kazarian final-merits determination. AAO found only two criteria met and petitioner not distinguished at the top of the field (pp. 2, 7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Original contributions and scholarly authorship were met. Published material and judging were not met; leading/critical role was not established. Legacy aggregate conclusion found acclaim/top-of-field evidence insufficient (pp. 3–7).
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 | not met |
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 met |
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: Historical comparator on collaborative research leadership, field-wide significance, and internal peer review. Clearly date as legacy decision and avoid applying 2006 reasoning as current binding precedent. Source-linked historical summary and qualified collaborative-research comparison.
Editorial use note: Source-linked historical summary and qualified collaborative-research comparison.
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
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.