AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAY212024_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY212024_01B2203: dismissed. The Director found judging and scholarly authorship met. The AAO affirmed the finding that original contributions were not established; the record did not establish the required three criteria.
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: Complete AAO decision involving an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition or motion.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY212024_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2024-05-21 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO EB-1A appellate decision or motion proceeding |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial of a Form I-140 EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO states the initial evidentiary threshold was not met and final merits was not required. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The Director found judging and scholarly authorship met. The AAO affirmed the finding that original contributions were not established; the record did not establish the required three criteria.
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 | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
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: The Director found two criteria met—judging and scholarly authorship—and found original contributions not established. (p. 2); pages: 2
claim: The AAO found the petitioner did not show that the research contributions had major significance; citation rankings, publication record, and letters did not cure the deficiencies. (pp. 2–4); pages: 2; 4
claim: The AAO concluded that the petitioner had not satisfied three criteria, so final merits was not required. (p. 5); pages: 5
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.