AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAY282020_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY282020_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO finds judging, original contributions and scholarly authorship criteria met, but the totality does not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY282020_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 28, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A; wireless/electrical engineer |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | "not met" |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO finds judging, original contributions and scholarly authorship criteria met, but the totality does not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.
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 coded — source PDF |
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. 1–5; relevant findings cited in criterion entries and page notes.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong contrast case for content on the two-step analysis: satisfying three criteria does not dictate final-merits approval. Engineer-specific discussion of citation distribution, adoption, and prototype-stage work. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Three asserted criteria; threshold and initial analysis.
PDF page 3 — Major-significance findings and citation context.
PDF page 4 — Final-merits analysis: citation/recognition limits and technology maturity.
PDF page 5 — Continued commercial/prototype impact concerns; adverse final merits and dismissal.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Computing sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.