AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision MAY282020_07B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Only two criteria were found met. AAO expressly said a Kazarian final-merits determination was unnecessary, then provided a separate aggregate assessment.
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: The source identifies an EB-1A Form I-140 petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY282020_07B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2020-05-28 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability under INA §203(b)(1)(A) |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO de novo appeal of Nebraska Service Center EB-1A denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Only two criteria were found met. AAO expressly said a Kazarian final-merits determination was unnecessary, then provided a separate aggregate assessment. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Only two criteria were found met. AAO expressly said a Kazarian final-merits determination was unnecessary, then provided a separate aggregate assessment.
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 | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
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 petitioner was a graduate student at filing and later a postdoctoral researcher in materials science/battery research.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Director found judging and scholarly authorship met; AAO agreed. Published-material claim failed because articles were not sufficiently about the petitioner.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5
claim: Letters, citation counts and patents did not show original contributions of major significance as of the filing date.; pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: The decision states only two of four claimed criteria were met; no formal final-merits determination was required, although it gives aggregate discussion.; pages: 2; 8; 9
claim: Appeal dismissed.; pages: 9
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
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.