AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY292008_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY292008_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. The AAO found only scholarly-article authorship met. It discussed peer review, membership, contributions, and leading/critical role and concluded the petitioner had not met three criteria. (pp. 3–12).
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 | MAY292008_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 29, 2008 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO EB-1A sciences/engineering petition concerning a structural-health-monitoring and nanotechnology researcher/engineer. (pp. 2–3) |
Procedural posture | Appeal of service-center denial; AAO dismissed. (pp. 2, 12) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly considered the evidence in aggregate and found it did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, despite not meeting the initial three-criterion threshold. (p. 12) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found only scholarly-article authorship met. It discussed peer review, membership, contributions, and leading/critical role and concluded the petitioner had not met three criteria. (pp. 3–12)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
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 holds and limits
No source identity or completeness hold. The source uses older regulatory discussion and the person’s then-student status; do not imply current standards or present-day standing.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If editorially cleared, prepare a source-linked decision summary that names the procedural posture, distinguishes criterion-stage findings from final merits, and cites the PDF pages. Narrow comparison for early-career engineering researchers on scholarly authorship versus peer review, patents, citations, commercialization, and independent field impact.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role 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.