AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision MAY202009_01B2203: Published material about the person

AAO EB-1A decision MAY202009_01B2203: Published material about the person

EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAY202009_01B2203: Appeal sustained; Director’s decision withdrawn and petition approved (p. 6).…

Decision summary: AAO decision MAY202009_01B2203: Appeal sustained; Director’s decision withdrawn and petition approved (p. 6). The AAO found the claimed “Who’s Who” and other material did not establish qualifying published material about petitioner. It credited actual service on an American Society for Cell Biology peer-screening panel, original discoveries in ion-exchange biology supported by letters/citation record, and the total evidence as establishing sustained national acclaim and continued work (pp. 4–6).

Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.

Scope classification from review: In scope; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID

MAY202009_01B2203

Decision date as printed

May 20, 2009

Classification / field stated in source

EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences; life/environmental scientist and cardiology researcher (pp. 2, 5).

Procedural posture

Appeal of Texas Service Center denial. Director found only one initial criterion; AAO reviewed published material, judging, original contributions, and acclaim (pp. 2–5).

Operative disposition

Appeal sustained; Director’s decision withdrawn and petition approved (p. 6).

Final-merits status

Not coded in the normalized review fields

What the AAO decision addressed

The AAO found the claimed “Who’s Who” and other material did not establish qualifying published material about petitioner. It credited actual service on an American Society for Cell Biology peer-screening panel, original discoveries in ion-exchange biology supported by letters/citation record, and the total evidence as establishing sustained national acclaim and continued work (pp. 4–6).

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
Directory biographies and other submitted items did not establish qualifying major-media material about the petitioner; some items postdated filing or concerned collaborators (pp. 3–4). — source PDF

Judging the work of others

met — source PDF

Original contributions of major significance

met
Independent letters and citation record supported novel NCKX findings and their recognition in the field (pp. 5–6). — source PDF

Scholarly authorship

met — source PDF

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 holds and limits

"Names and research details are redacted; avoid reconstructing masked identities or extending the decision’s conclusions beyond its record."

Source-cited findings recorded in review

  • p1: Redacted legacy cover; Texas Service Center, printed date and I-140.; p2: Appeal posture; AAO states appeal sustained; director found only one criterion; life/environmental scientist classification.; p3: Criteria and published-material analysis; “Who’s Who” and other articles considered.; p4: Promotional-directory and post-filing material rejected; judging evidence begins.; p5: Peer-review/panel evidence and original cardiology contribution record.; p6: Research impact/citations and independent support; totality, continued work, prospective benefit and approval order.

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Strong researcher approval showing actual panel evaluation and corroborated, field-relevant original discovery can matter; does not make directory inclusion or post-filing work a substitute for evidence. Eligible for source-cited approval summary, clearly distinguish Director’s initial finding from AAO’s appellate review.

Editorial use note: Eligible for source-cited approval summary, clearly distinguish Director’s initial finding from AAO’s appellate review.

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

  • Original contributions of major significance research

  • Medicine sector research

  • Corroborat research

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

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for MAY202009_01B2203